System for Context-Specific Visualization of Clinical Practice Guidelines (GuLiNav): Concept and Software Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support systems often adopt and operationalize existing clinical practice guidelines leading to higher guideline availability, increased guideline adherence, and data integration. Most of these systems use an internal state-based model of a clinical practice guideline to derive recommendations but do not provide the user with comprehensive insight into the model. OBJECTIVE: Here we present a novel approach based on dynamic guideline visualization that incorporates the individual patient's current treatment context. METHODS: We derived multiple requirements to be fulfilled by such an enhanced guideline visualization. Using business process and model notation as the representation format for computer-interpretable guidelines, a combination of graph-based representation and logical inferences is adopted for guideline processing. A context-specific guideline visualization is inferred using a business rules engine. RESULTS: We implemented and piloted an algorithmic approach for guideline interpretation and processing. As a result of this interpretation, a context-specific guideline is derived and visualized. Our implementation can be used as a software library but also provides a representational state transfer interface. Spring, Camunda, and Drools served as the main frameworks for implementation. A formative usability evaluation of a demonstrator tool that uses the visualization yielded high acceptance among clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: The novel guideline processing and visualization concept proved to be technically feasible. The approach addresses known problems of guideline-based clinical decision support systems. Further research is necessary to evaluate the applicability of the approach in specific medical use cases.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".