MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206601984 · doi:10.2196/32158

Domain-Specific Common Data Elements for Rare Disease Registration: Conceptual Approach of a European Joint Initiative Toward Semantic Interoperability in Rare Disease Research

2022· article· en· W4206601984 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Haitham Abaza, Dennis Kadioglu, Simona Cristina Martin, Andri Papadopoulou‐Bouraoui, Bruna dos Santos Vieira, Franz Schaefer, Holger Storf

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Rare Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteroperabilitySemantic interoperabilityComputer scienceDomain (mathematical analysis)Rare diseaseJoint (building)DiseaseData scienceMedicineKnowledge managementWorld Wide WebPathologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: With hundreds of registries across Europe, rare diseases (RDs) suffer from fragmented knowledge, expertise, and research. A joint initiative of the European Commission Joint Research Center and its European Platform on Rare Disease Registration (EU RD Platform), the European Reference Networks (ERNs), and the European Joint Programme on Rare Diseases (EJP RD) was launched in 2020. The purpose was to extend the set of common data elements (CDEs) for RD registration by defining domain-specific CDEs (DCDEs). OBJECTIVE: This study aims to introduce and assess the feasibility of the concept of a joint initiative that unites the efforts of the European Platform on Rare Disease Registration Platform, ERNs, and European Joint Programme on Rare Diseases toward extending RD CDEs, aiming to improve the semantic interoperability of RD registries and enhance the quality of RD research. METHODS: A joint conference was conducted in December 2020. All 24 ERNs were invited. Before the conference, a survey was communicated to all ERNs, proposing 18 medical domains and requesting them to identify highly relevant choices. After the conference, a 3-phase plan for defining and modeling DCDEs was drafted. Expected outcomes included harmonized lists of DCDEs. RESULTS: All ERNs attended the conference. The survey results indicated that genetic, congenital, pediatric, and cancer were the most overlapping domains. Accordingly, the proposed list was reorganized into 10 domain groups and recommunicated to all ERNs, aiming at a smaller number of domains. CONCLUSIONS: The approach described for defining DCDEs appears to be feasible. However, it remains dynamic and should be repeated regularly based on arising research needs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicGenomics and Rare DiseasesFrench-language works237,207