MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ontology Support for Healthcare IoT

2024· article· en· W4405491326 on OpenAlexaff
Alaa Alsaig, Ammar Alsaig, Yang Liu, Vangalur Alagar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOntologyComputer scienceInternet of ThingsHealth careData scienceKnowledge managementWorld Wide WebEpistemologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ontology is necessary in medical information systems to manage terminologies and explain unambiguously medical concepts. Healthcare Internet of Things is providing large scale connectivity for medical devices, diseases, concepts, drugs, vaccines, and procedures for humans such as physicians and clinical staff to use them. Because of distributed connectivity of the “things”, remotely administering medical help to people, wherever they are and whenever they want, is possible. It is in this context health care domain Ontology plays a crucial role, in providing a sound semantic basis for defining the meaning, relatedness, and procedures to use the “things” for data integration and analysis in health care domain. In general, there may exist more than one ontology for a specific application domain and concept terms may be distributed among them. The degree of closeness of semantically related concept terms that are distributed among different ontologies in a specific domain is usually called semantic similarity of concept terms in that domain. Both structural uniformity and semantic compatibility are essential for Healthcare IoT. This paper proposes a formal structural representation for an Ontology that enables a formal approach to efficiently estimate similarity measures between concept terms from different ontologies in the same domain, without merging the ontologies. The measures estimated by the proposed method have stability property, where stability means the relative ordering based on the estimated measures will be consistent with the ordering produced by measures calculated from the merged ontologies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.238 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207