Extending the GEM model to support knowledge extraction from textual guidelines.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) are being developed as a tool to promote best practice in medicine. However, the diffusion of paper guidelines has been shown to only have a limited impact. This is why computerization of CPGs has recently been suggested as a means to improve their dissemination as well as physicians' compliance. The Guideline Elements Model (GEM) has been proposed to facilitate the encoding of CPGs and support the automatic processing of marked-up documents. In this paper, we explore the automatic generation of a rule base from a textual guideline using GEM. In this study, we propose an extension of the GEM model that introduces additional levels of structuring centered on decision variables. This allows a more efficient representation of the decision processes, which supports the automatic generation of decision rules from textual guidelines. The 1999 Canadian recommendations for the management of hypertension have been marked-up as a GEM-encoded instance of our extended DTD. We derived a rule base using an XML parser to extract the relevant elements to instantiate the IF and THEN clauses of decision rules. The rule base automatically generated compares favourably with the manual generation of decision rules in the ASTI project. This approach is an interesting case study in the computerization of CPGs, as it illustrates processing steps that are relevant to the various aspects of CPGs life-cycle, from production to consultation and use.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".