A Decision Support System (DSS) for Colorectal Cancer Follow-Up Program via a Semantic Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper offers insights into evolving a decision support system (DSS) to aid primary care physicians and/or nurses in the post-surgical care of patients with Colorectal Cancer in a clinical setting. Presently, the oncologists in the cancer center, who are familiar with the Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs), are primarily responsible for the provision of follow-up care to their patients on the basis of the CPGs; in contrast, the attending primary care physician and/or nurse assisting the oncologist may be unfamiliar with these guidelines. These caregivers would, therefore, either require hardcopies of the CPGs or can be aided via a DSS for them to be able to provide the appropriate follow-up care for the respective cancer patients. Clearly, the Colorectal Cancer follow-up CPGs have to be analyzed and the ontology representing the knowledge embedded in the guidelines designed prior to realizing such a DSS. The designed ontology is often coded into Web Ontology Language (OWL) as a standard ontology that can be accessed through the Web. The authors' research team designed and presented the semantic framework of the web application, using the designed ontology that combines the current Web technology with database storage to achieve a unified development of the DSS. The authors also designed a user-friendly interface of the Web application to provide medical practitioners the functionality of the CPGs and the flexibility to customize the desired follow-up care schedule. The resulting DSS provides the physicians with follow-up program for the Colorectal Cancer patients based on the CPGs. The system was built using the semantic framework for the follow-up program and queries on the system are executed through SPARQL query engine.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".