Web-based interactive mapping from data dictionaries to ontologies, with an application to cancer registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Kentucky Cancer Registry (KCR) is a central cancer registry for the state of Kentucky that receives data about incident cancer cases from all healthcare facilities in the state within 6 months of diagnosis. Similar to all other U.S. and Canadian cancer registries, KCR uses a data dictionary provided by the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) for standardized data entry. The NAACCR data dictionary is not an ontological system. Mapping between the NAACCR data dictionary and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Thesaurus (NCIt) will facilitate the enrichment, dissemination and utilization of cancer registry data. We introduce a web-based system, called Interactive Mapping Interface (IMI), for creating mappings from data dictionaries to ontologies, in particular from NAACCR to NCIt. METHOD: IMI has been designed as a general approach with three components: (1) ontology library; (2) mapping interface; and (3) recommendation engine. The ontology library provides a list of ontologies as targets for building mappings. The mapping interface consists of six modules: project management, mapping dashboard, access control, logs and comments, hierarchical visualization, and result review and export. The built-in recommendation engine automatically identifies a list of candidate concepts to facilitate the mapping process. RESULTS: We report the architecture design and interface features of IMI. To validate our approach, we implemented an IMI prototype and pilot-tested features using the IMI interface to map a sample set of NAACCR data elements to NCIt concepts. 47 out of 301 NAACCR data elements have been mapped to NCIt concepts. Five branches of hierarchical tree have been identified from these mapped concepts for visual inspection. CONCLUSIONS: IMI provides an interactive, web-based interface for building mappings from data dictionaries to ontologies. Although our pilot-testing scope is limited, our results demonstrate feasibility using IMI for semantic enrichment of cancer registry data by mapping NAACCR data elements to NCIt concepts.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".