AnnoDash, a clinical terminology annotation dashboard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Standard ontologies are critical for interoperability and multisite analyses of health data. Nevertheless, mapping concepts to ontologies is often done with generic tools and is labor-intensive. Contextualizing candidate concepts within source data is also done in an ad hoc manner. Methods and Results: We present AnnoDash, a flexible dashboard to support annotation of concepts with terms from a given ontology. Text-based similarity is used to identify likely matches, and large language models are used to improve ontology ranking. A convenient interface is provided to visualize observations associated with a concept, supporting the disambiguation of vague concept descriptions. Time-series plots contrast the concept with known clinical measurements. We evaluated the dashboard qualitatively against several ontologies (SNOMED CT, LOINC, etc.) by using MIMIC-IV measurements. The dashboard is web-based and step-by-step instructions for deployment are provided, simplifying usage for nontechnical audiences. The modular code structure enables users to extend upon components, including improving similarity scoring, constructing new plots, or configuring new ontologies. Conclusion: AnnoDash, an improved clinical terminology annotation tool, can facilitate data harmonizing by promoting mapping of clinical data. AnnoDash is freely available at https://github.com/justin13601/AnnoDash (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8043943).
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 | 0.009 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.026 |
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".