Using language models and ontology topology to perform semantic mapping of traits between biomedical datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Motivation Human traits are typically represented in both the biomedical literature and large population studies as descriptive text strings. Whilst a number of ontologies exist, none of these perfectly represent the entire human phenome and exposome. Mapping trait names across large datasets is therefore time-consuming and challenging. Recent developments in language modelling have created new methods for semantic representation of words and phrases, and these methods offer new opportunities to map human trait names in the form of words and short phrases, both to ontologies and to each other. Here we present a comparison between a range of established and more recent language modelling approaches for the task of mapping trait names from UK Biobank to the Experimental Factor Ontology (EFO), and also explore how they compare to each other in direct trait-to-trait mapping. Results In our analyses of 1191 traits from UK Biobank with manual EFO mappings, the BioSentVec model performed best at predicting these, matching 40.3% of the manual mappings correctly. The BlueBERT-EFO model (finetuned on EFO) performed nearly as well (38.8% of traits matching the manual mapping). In contrast, Levenshtein edit distance only mapped 22% of traits correctly. Pairwise mapping of traits to each other demonstrated that many of the models can accurately group similar traits based on their semantic similarity. Availability and Implementation Our code is available at https://github.com/MRCIEU/vectology .
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 | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".