Aligning an interface terminology to the Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC®)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our study consists in aligning the interface terminology of the Bordeaux university hospital (TLAB) to the Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC). The objective was to facilitate the shared and integrated use of biological results with other health information systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used an innovative approach based on a decomposition and re-composition of LOINC concepts according to the transversal relations that may be described between LOINC concepts and their definitional attributes. TLAB entities were first anchored to LOINC attributes and then aligned to LOINC concepts through the appropriate combination of definitional attributes. Finally, using laboratory results of the Bordeaux data-warehouse, an instance-based filtering process has been applied. RESULTS: We found a small overlap between the tokens constituting the labels of TLAB and LOINC. However, the TLAB entities have been easily aligned to LOINC attributes. Thus, 99.8% of TLAB entities have been related to a LOINC analyte and 61.0% to a LOINC system. A total of 55.4% of used TLAB entities in the hospital data-warehouse have been mapped to LOINC concepts. We performed a manual evaluation of all 1-1 mappings between TLAB entities and LOINC concepts and obtained a precision of 0.59. CONCLUSION: We aligned TLAB and LOINC with reasonable performances, given the poor quality of TLAB labels. In terms of interoperability, the alignment of interface terminologies with LOINC could be improved through a more formal LOINC structure. This would allow queries on LOINC attributes rather than on LOINC concepts only.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".