Developing a pneumonia diagnosis ontology from multiple knowledge sources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pneumonia is difficult to differentiate from other pulmonary diseases because it shares many symptoms with these diseases. Diagnosing pneumonia in clinical practice would benefit from having access to a codified representation of clinical knowledge. An ontology represents a well-established paradigm for such codification. Objectives: The goal of this research is to create Pneumonia Diagnosis Ontology (PNADO) that brings together the medical knowledge dispersed among multiple medical knowledge sources. Material and Methods: We used several clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) describing the pneumonia diagnostic process as a starting point in developing PNADO. Preliminary version of PNADO was subsequently expanded to cover a broader range of the concepts by reusing ontologies from Open Biological and Biomedical Ontology (OBO) Foundry and BioPortal. PNADO was evaluated by examining relevant concepts from the pneumonia-specific systematic reviews, using patient data from the MIMIC-III clinical dataset, and by clinical domain experts. Results: PNADO is a comprehensive ontology and has a rich set of classes and properties that cover different types of pneumonia, pathogens, symptoms, clinical signs, laboratory tests and imaging, clinical findings, complications, and diagnoses. Conclusion: PNADO unifies pneumonia diagnostic concepts from multiple knowledge sources. It is available in the BioPortal repository.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".