Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources, Clinical Quality Language, and Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine—Clinical Terms in Representing Clinical Evidence Logic Statements for the Use of Imaging Procedures: Descriptive Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guidelines and recommendations can be transformed into "If-Then" Clinical Evidence Logic Statements (CELS). Imaging-related CELS were represented in standardized formats in the Harvard Medical School Library of Evidence (HLE). OBJECTIVE: We aimed to (1) describe the representation of CELS using established Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine-Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT), Clinical Quality Language (CQL), and Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) standards and (2) assess the limitations of using these standards to represent imaging-related CELS. METHODS: This study was exempt from review by the Institutional Review Board as it involved no human subjects. Imaging-related clinical recommendations were extracted from evidence sources and translated into CELS. The clinical terminologies of CELS were represented using SNOMED CT and the condition-action logic was represented in CQL and FHIR. Numbers of fully and partially represented CELS were tallied. RESULTS: A total of 765 CELS were represented in the HLE as of December 2018. We were able to fully represent 137 of 765 (17.9%) CELS using SNOMED CT, CQL, and FHIR. We were able to represent terms using SNOMED CT in the temporal component for action ("Then") statements in CQL and FHIR in 755 of 765 (98.7%) CELS. CONCLUSIONS: CELS were represented as shareable clinical decision support (CDS) knowledge artifacts using existing standards-SNOMED CT, FHIR, and CQL-to promote and accelerate adoption of evidence-based practice. Limitations to standardization persist, which could be minimized with an add-on set of standard terms and value sets and by adding time frames to the CQL framework.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".