Research on Traditional Chinese Medicine: Domain Knowledge Graph Completion and Quality Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knowledge graphs (KGs) can integrate domain knowledge into a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) intelligent syndrome differentiation model. However, the quality of current KGs in the TCM domain varies greatly, related to the lack of knowledge graph completion (KGC) and evaluation methods. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate KGC and evaluation methods tailored for TCM domain knowledge. METHODS: In the KGC phase, according to the characteristics of TCM domain knowledge, we proposed a 3-step "entity-ontology-path" completion approach. This approach uses path reasoning, ontology rule reasoning, and association rules. In the KGC quality evaluation phase, we proposed a 3-dimensional evaluation framework that encompasses completeness, accuracy, and usability, using quantitative metrics such as complex network analysis, ontology reasoning, and graph representation. Furthermore, we compared the impact of different graph representation models on KG usability. RESULTS: In the KGC phase, 52, 107, 27, and 479 triples were added by outlier analysis, rule-based reasoning, association rules, and path-based reasoning, respectively. In addition, rule-based reasoning identified 14 contradictory triples. In the KGC quality evaluation phase, in terms of completeness, KG had higher density and lower sparsity after completion, and there were no contradictory rules within the KG. In terms of accuracy, KG after completion was more consistent with prior knowledge. In terms of usability, the mean reciprocal ranking, mean rank, and hit rate of the first N tail entities predicted by the model (Hits@N) of the TransE, RotatE, DistMult, and ComplEx graph representation models all showed improvement after KGC. Among them, the RotatE model achieved the best representation. CONCLUSIONS: The 3-step completion approach can effectively improve the completeness, accuracy, and availability of KGs, and the 3-dimensional evaluation framework can be used for comprehensive KGC evaluation. In the TCM field, the RotatE model performed better at KG representation.
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 | 0.015 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".