A National, Semantic-Driven, Three-Pillar Strategy to Enable Health Data Secondary Usage Interoperability for Research Within the Swiss Personalized Health Network: Methodological Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interoperability is a well-known challenge in medical informatics. Current trends in interoperability have moved from a data model technocentric approach to sustainable semantics, formal descriptive languages, and processes. Despite many initiatives and investments for decades, the interoperability challenge remains crucial. The need for data sharing for most purposes ranging from patient care to secondary uses, such as public health, research, and quality assessment, faces unmet problems. OBJECTIVE: This work was performed in the context of a large Swiss Federal initiative aiming at building a national infrastructure for reusing consented data acquired in the health care and research system to enable research in the field of personalized medicine in Switzerland. The initiative is the Swiss Personalized Health Network (SPHN). This initiative is providing funding to foster use and exchange of health-related data for research. As part of the initiative, a national strategy to enable a semantically interoperable clinical data landscape was developed and implemented. METHODS: A deep analysis of various approaches to address interoperability was performed at the start, including large frameworks in health care, such as Health Level Seven (HL7) and Integrating Healthcare Enterprise (IHE), and in several domains, such as regulatory agencies (eg, Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium [CDISC]) and research communities (eg, Observational Medical Outcome Partnership [OMOP]), to identify bottlenecks and assess sustainability. Based on this research, a strategy composed of three pillars was designed. It has strong multidimensional semantics, descriptive formal language for exchanges, and as many data models as needed to comply with the needs of various communities. RESULTS: This strategy has been implemented stepwise in Switzerland since the middle of 2019 and has been adopted by all university hospitals and high research organizations. The initiative is coordinated by a central organization, the SPHN Data Coordination Center of the SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics. The semantics is mapped by domain experts on various existing standards, such as Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT), Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC), and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). The resource description framework (RDF) is used for storing and transporting data, and to integrate information from different sources and standards. Data transformers based on SPARQL query language are implemented to convert RDF representations to the numerous data models required by the research community or bridge with other systems, such as electronic case report forms. CONCLUSIONS: The SPHN strategy successfully implemented existing standards in a pragmatic and applicable way. It did not try to build any new standards but used existing ones in a nondogmatic way. It has now been funded for another 4 years, bringing the Swiss landscape into a new dimension to support research in the field of personalized medicine and large interoperable clinical data.
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 | 0.077 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".