MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

GRADE concept paper 9: rationale and process for creating a GRADE Ontology

2025· article· en· W4412979870 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Whaley, Brian S. Alper, Joanne Dehnbostel, Carlos Alva‐Díaz, Stavros A. Antoniou, Antonio Bognanni, Javier Bracchiglione, Therese Kristine Dalsbø, Sean Grant, Jennifer Hunter, Alfonso Iorio, Malgorzata Lagisz, Harold P. Lehmann, Sheyu Li, Joerg J Meerpohl, Saphia Mokrane, Cauê Mônaco, Ignacio Neumann, Kevin Pottie, Shahab Sayfi, Nigar Sekercioglu, Bernardo Sousa‐Pinto, Janice Tufte, Lenny Vasanthan, Li Wang, Jun Xia, Xiaomei Yao, Holger J. Schünemann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesBruyèreWestern UniversityUniversity of AlbertaMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOntologyComputer scienceProcess (computing)MedicineInformation retrievalEpistemologyPhilosophyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: As the rate of research production accelerates, the ability to efficiently and unambiguously communicate judgments relating to the synthesis, evaluation, and use of scientific information becomes paramount. PERSPECTIVE: Scientific information can be viewed as a "layered infrastructure" of data, evidence, knowledge, and use. The GRADE approach serves as a de facto data standard for this infrastructure, supporting movement between layers by reducing ambiguity in claims to knowledge (in the form of judgements of certainty in the evidence when answering research questions) and level of commitment to possible solutions to problems (in the form of strength of recommendations for interventions). PURPOSE: This GRADE concept paper outlines the structure, purpose, and potential benefits of the GRADE Ontology for (a) the creators of, educators in, and users of systematic reviews, health guidelines, and health technology assessments, and (b) the development of tools that help with conducting, finding, and summarising the same. This paper also presents the processes for the development and maintenance of the GRADE Ontology, a formalised terminology standard within GRADE that will support the efficiency, rigour, consistency, and interoperability of GRADE's use. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The rate of research production is increasing exponentially. It is therefore becoming increasingly important to quickly, efficiently, and unambiguously communicate the judgments made and processes used when doing research and using evidence to inform policy decisions. GRADE is a widely used approach to assessing certainty of evidence when answering research questions and making recommendations for health interventions, designed to help with the efficient and transparent evaluation and use of evidence. However, the absence of a formalized terminology standard within GRADE limits the efficiency with which the results of its use can be communicated. In response, the GRADE Ontology is being created. This concept paper outlines what an ontology is, how it helps with communicating scientific information, the specific benefits of the GRADE Ontology, and the processes for developing and maintaining a useful, valid ontology that supports the use of the GRADE approach.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.195
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical EpidemiologySame topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207