Evaluating the representation of disaster hazards in SNOMED CT: gaps and opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Climate change, an underlying risk driver of natural disasters, threatens the environmental sustainability, planetary health, and sustainable development goals. Incorporating disaster-related health impacts into electronic health records helps to comprehend their impact on populations, clinicians, and healthcare systems. This study aims to: (1) map the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction and International Science Council (UNDRR-ISC) Hazard Information Profiles to SNOMED CT International, a clinical terminology used by clinicians, to manage patients and provide healthcare services; and (2) to determine the extent of clinical terminologies available to capture disaster-related events. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Concepts related to disasters were extracted from the UNDRR-ISC's Hazard Information Profiles and mapped to a health terminology using a procedural framework for standardized clinical terminology mapping. The mapping process involved evaluating candidate matches and creating a final list of matches to determine concept coverage. RESULTS: A total of 226 disaster hazard concepts were identified to adversely impact human health. Chemical and biological disaster hazard concepts had better representation than meteorological, hydrological, extraterrestrial, geohazards, environmental, technical, and societal hazard concepts in SNOMED CT. Heatwave, drought, and geographically unique disaster hazards were not found in SNOMED CT. CONCLUSION: To enhance clinical reporting of disaster hazards and climate-sensitive health outcomes, the poorly represented and missing concepts in SNOMED CT must be included. Documenting the impacts of climate change on public health using standardized clinical terminology provides the necessary real time data to capture climate-sensitive outcomes. These data are crucial for building climate-resilient healthcare systems, enhanced public health disaster responses and workflows, tracking individual health outcomes, supporting disaster risk reduction modeling, and aiding in disaster preparedness, response, and recovery efforts.
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 | 0.033 | 0.114 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".