A graph-based analysis approach for enhanced health study discoverability (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Efficiently finding and exploring relevant health studies is critical for informed, evidence-based health care. However, study information remains distributed across multiple resources, hindering interoperability, search, and reuse. Enhancing the findability of study data is a key challenge in promoting the findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) principles in health research. Objective: This study aimed to improve the findability and comparability of health studies by developing a semantically enriched graph-based framework that supports intuitive search and exploration for diverse stakeholders, including clinicians, researchers, and patients. Methods: We developed the BRAinS-Graph ("Biomedical Knowledge Graph for Recommending and Analysing Health Studies"), a semantically enriched knowledge base that integrates data from ClinicalTrials.gov, the Portal for Medical Data Models, the Unified Medical Language System, and MeSH into a single graph database. The framework applies an extract-transform-load process to integrate heterogeneous data structures and link related information across study resources and biomedical ontologies. Results: The BRAinS-Graph supports fine-grained, semantic searches across study metadata, eligibility criteria, and structural properties. Use cases illustrate its potential for clinicians, patients, and researchers, including analyses of study type distributions for meta-analyses and the identification of studies relevant to individual patients. Conclusions: By integrating heterogeneous study data into one interconnected knowledge base, the BRAinS-Graph improves the findability, accessibility, and reusability of study information. This work establishes a foundation for graph-based study recommendation systems and cross-institutional research infrastructures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".