Domain-Specific Common Data Elements for Rare Disease Registration: Conceptual Approach of a European Joint Initiative Toward Semantic Interoperability in Rare Disease Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.089 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".