MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312019156 · doi:10.2196/43053

Ontologies Applied in Clinical Decision Support System Rules: Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4312019156 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xia Jing, Hua Min, Yang Gong, Paul Biondich, David J. Robinson, Timothy Law, Christian Nøhr, Arild Faxvaag, Lior Rennert, Nina Hubig, Ronald W. Gimbel

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsComputer scienceClinical decision support systemDecision support systemData miningData scienceSoftware engineeringKnowledge management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are important for the quality and safety of health care delivery. Although CDSS rules guide CDSS behavior, they are not routinely shared and reused. OBJECTIVE: Ontologies have the potential to promote the reuse of CDSS rules. Therefore, we systematically screened the literature to elaborate on the current status of ontologies applied in CDSS rules, such as rule management, which uses captured CDSS rule usage data and user feedback data to tailor CDSS services to be more accurate, and maintenance, which updates CDSS rules. Through this systematic literature review, we aim to identify the frontiers of ontologies used in CDSS rules. METHODS: The literature search was focused on the intersection of ontologies; clinical decision support; and rules in PubMed, the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library, and the Nursing & Allied Health Database. Grounded theory and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines were followed. One author initiated the screening and literature review, while 2 authors validated the processes and results independently. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed and refined iteratively. RESULTS: CDSSs were primarily used to manage chronic conditions, alerts for medication prescriptions, reminders for immunizations and preventive services, diagnoses, and treatment recommendations among 81 included publications. The CDSS rules were presented in Semantic Web Rule Language, Jess, or Jena formats. Despite the fact that ontologies have been used to provide medical knowledge, CDSS rules, and terminologies, they have not been used in CDSS rule management or to facilitate the reuse of CDSS rules. CONCLUSIONS: Ontologies have been used to organize and represent medical knowledge, controlled vocabularies, and the content of CDSS rules. So far, there has been little reuse of CDSS rules. More work is needed to improve the reusability and interoperability of CDSS rules. This review identified and described the ontologies that, despite their limitations, enable Semantic Web technologies and their applications in CDSS rules.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.178
GPT teacher head0.554
Teacher spread0.375 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207