ArticlePLOS digital health2022
Diseasomics: Actionable machine interpretable disease knowledge at the point-of-care.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital Twins for Clinical and Operational Decision-Making: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Patient-centric knowledge graphs: a survey of current methods, challenges, and applications.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Physicians establish diagnosis by assessing a patient's signs, symptoms, age, sex, laboratory test findings and the disease history. All this must be done in limited time and against the backdrop of an increasing overall workload. In the era of evidence-based medicine it is utmost important for a clinician to be abreast of the latest guidelines and treatment protocols which are changing rapidly. In resource limited settings, the updated knowledge often does not reach the point-of-care. This paper presents an artificial intelligence (AI)-based approach for integrating comprehensive disease knowledge, to support physicians and healthcare workers in arriving at accurate diagnoses at the point-of-care. We integrated different disease-related knowledge bodies to construct a comprehensive, machine interpretable diseasomics knowledge-graph that includes the Disease Ontology, disease symptoms, SNOMED CT, DisGeNET, and PharmGKB data. The resulting disease-symptom network comprises knowledge from the Symptom Ontology, electronic health records (EHR), human symptom disease network, Disease Ontology, Wikipedia, PubMed, textbooks, and symptomology knowledge sources with 84.56% accuracy. We also integrated spatial and temporal comorbidity knowledge obtained from EHR for two population data sets from Spain and Sweden respectively. The knowledge graph is stored in a graph database as a digital twin of the disease knowledge. We use node2vec (node embedding) as digital triplet for link prediction in disease-symptom networks to identify missing associations. This diseasomics knowledge graph is expected to democratize the medical knowledge and empower non-specialist health workers to make evidence based informed decisions and help achieve the goal of universal health coverage (UHC). The machine interpretable knowledge graphs presented in this paper are associations between various entities and do not imply causation. Our differential diagnostic tool focusses on signs and symptoms and does not include a complete assessment of patient's lifestyle and health history which would typically be necessary to rule out conditions and to arrive at a final diagnosis. The predicted diseases are ordered according to the specific disease burden in South Asia. The knowledge graphs and the tools presented here can be used as a guide.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.