Clinical Decision Support System Based on Hybrid Knowledge Modeling: A Case Study of Chronic Kidney Disease-Mineral and Bone Disorder Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) represent the latest technological transformation in healthcare for assisting clinicians in complex decision-making. Several CDSSs are proposed to deal with a range of clinical tasks such as disease diagnosis, prescription management, and medication ordering. Although a small number of CDSSs have focused on treatment selection, areas such as medication selection and dosing selection remained under-researched. In this regard, this study represents one of the first studies in which a CDSS is proposed for clinicians who manage patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing maintenance hemodialysis, almost all of whom have some manifestation of chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). The primary objective of the system is to aid clinicians in dosage prescription by levering medical domain knowledge as well existing practices. The proposed CDSS is evaluated with a real-world hemodialysis patient dataset acquired from Kyung Hee University Hospital, South Korea. Our evaluation demonstrates overall high compliance based on the concordance metric between the proposed CKD-MBD CDSS recommendations and the routine clinical practice. The concordance rate of overall medication dosing selection is 78.27%. Furthermore, the usability aspects of the system are also evaluated through the User Experience Questionnaire method to highlight the appealing aspects of the system for clinicians. The overall user experience dimension scores for pragmatic, hedonic, and attractiveness are 1.53, 1.48, and 1.41, respectively. A service reliability for the Cronbach's alpha coefficient greater than 0.7 is achieved using the proposed system, whereas a dependability coefficient of the value 0.84 reveals a significant effect.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".