Using an Ontology to Derive a Sharable and Interoperable Relational Data Model for Heterogeneous Healthcare Data and Various Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A large volume of heavily fragmented data is generated daily in different healthcare contexts and is stored using various structures with different semantics. This fragmentation and heterogeneity make secondary use of data a challenge. Data integration approaches that derive a common data model from sources or requirements have some advantages. However, these approaches are often built for a specific application where the research questions are known. Thus, the semantic and structural reconciliation is often not reusable nor reproducible. A recent integration approach using knowledge models has been developed with ontologies that provide a strong semantic foundation. Nonetheless, deriving a data model that captures the richness of the ontology to store data with their full semantic remains a challenging task. OBJECTIVES: This article addresses the following question: How to design a sharable and interoperable data model for storing heterogeneous healthcare data and their semantic to support various applications? METHOD: This article describes a method using an ontological knowledge model to automatically generate a data model for a domain of interest. The model can then be implemented in a relational database which efficiently enables the collection, storage, and retrieval of data while keeping semantic ontological annotations so that the same data can be extracted for various applications for further processing. RESULTS: , a prototype developed to demonstrate the conversion rules. CONCLUSION: This work is a first step toward automating and refining the generation of sharable and interoperable relational data models using ontologies with a freely available tool. The remaining challenges to cover all the ontology richness in the relational model are pointed out.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".