Representation of Environmental Concepts Associated with Health Impacts in Computer Standardized Clinical Terminologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the representation of environmental concepts associated with health impacts in standardized clinical terminologies. METHODS: This study used a descriptive approach with methods informed by a procedural framework for standardized clinical terminology mapping. The United Nations Global Indicator Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and Targets was used as the source document for concept extraction. The target terminologies were the Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT) and the International Classification for Nursing Practice (ICNP). Manual and automated mapping methods were utilized. The lists of candidate matches were reviewed and iterated until a final mapping match list was achieved. RESULTS: A total of 119 concepts with 133 mapping matches were added to the final SNOMED CT list. Fifty-three (39.8%) were direct matches, 37 (27.8%) were narrower than matches, 35 (26.3%) were broader than matches, and 8 (6%) had no matches. A total of 26 concepts with 27 matches were added to the final ICNP list. Eight (29.6%) were direct matches, 4 (14.8%) were narrower than, 7 (25.9%) were broader than, and 8 (29.6%) were no matches. CONCLUSION: Following this evaluation, both strengths and gaps were identified. Gaps in terminology representation included concepts related to cost expenditures, affordability, community engagement, water, air and sanitation. The inclusion of these concepts is necessary to advance the clinical reporting of these environmental and sustainability indicators. As environmental concepts encoded in standardized terminologies expand, additional insights into data and health conditions, research, education, and policy-level decision-making will be identified.
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 | 0.048 | 0.158 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".