Providing Comorbid Decision Support via the Integration of Clinical Practice Guidelines at Execution-Time by Leveraging Medical Linked Open Datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) utilize computerized Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) to deliver evidence-based care recommendations. However, when dealing with comorbidity (i.e., patients with multiple conditions), disease-specific CPG often interact in adverse ways (e.g., drug-drug, drug-disease interactions), and may involve redundant elements as well (e.g., repeated care tasks). To avoid adverse interactions and optimize care, current options involve the static, a priori integration of comorbid CPG by replacing or removing therapeutic tasks. Nevertheless, many aspects are relevant to a clinically safe and efficient integration, and these may change over time-task delays, test outcomes, and health profiles-which are not taken into account by static integrations. Moreover, in case of comorbidity, clinical practice often demands nuanced solutions, based on current health profiles. We propose an execution-time approach to safely and efficiently cope with comorbid conditions, leveraging knowledge from medical Linked Open Datasets to aid during CIG integration.
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 | 0.017 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".