Clinical Knowledge Representation (CKR): A Formal Framework for Machine-Readable Clinical Knowledge

Contemporary digital health infrastructure excels at representing data (DICOM), clinical resources (FHIR), concepts (SNOMED CT), and biomedical relations (knowledge graphs). Yet a structural gap persists at the foundation of clinical artificial intelligence: the knowledge that clinicians derive from these artifacts — structured, evidenced, provenance-bearing, and indexed to individual patients — is never explicitly represented in a computationally tractable form. AI systems are consequently forced to reconstruct, at inference time, the knowledge that was never encoded. This reconstruction is the root cause of clinical AI brittleness, opacity, poor generalizability, and regulatory non-compliance. This article introduces Clinical Knowledge Representation (CKR) as a formal architectural layer in computational medicine. CKR is defined as a semantic computational infrastructure that explicitly represents clinical knowledge through entities, attributes, relationships, evidence, provenance, temporality, context, and confidence, enabling explainable reasoning by both humans and artificial intelligence systems. We formalize CKR as an 8-tuple (E, A, R, V, P, T, C, F) with mathematical properties, specify a five-level provenance model, and demonstrate through systematic analysis that no existing standard or framework — including computable-knowledge and provenance models — satisfies all eight required properties of a clinical knowledge claim simultaneously. We further show that this gap constitutes a structural bottleneck for five major clinical AI paradigms: foundation models, retrieval-augmented generation, agentic AI, neuro-symbolic AI, and explainability. CKR complements — and does not replace — DICOM, FHIR, SNOMED CT, and knowledge graphs. It is the layer that makes them composable into explicit, auditable clinical knowledge. Note: This is an author-formatted preprint, deposited to establish priority and enable open community feedback prior to formal peer review. Dr. Rafael Jacobus, DDS – ([email protected])

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-07-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21103602
Primary Topic
Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
preprint

Clinical Knowledge Representation (CKR): A Formal Framework for Machine-Readable Clinical Knowledge

Rafael Jacobus
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
preprint

Clinical Knowledge Representation (CKR): A Formal Framework for Machine-Readable Clinical Knowledge

Rafael Jacobus
preprint en

Abstract

Contemporary digital health infrastructure excels at representing data (DICOM), clinical resources (FHIR), concepts (SNOMED CT), and biomedical relations (knowledge graphs). Yet a structural gap persists at the foundation of clinical artificial intelligence: the knowledge that clinicians derive from these artifacts — structured, evidenced, provenance-bearing, and indexed to individual patients — is never explicitly represented in a computationally tractable form. AI systems are consequently forced to reconstruct, at inference time, the knowledge that was never encoded. This reconstruction is the root cause of clinical AI brittleness, opacity, poor generalizability, and regulatory non-compliance. This article introduces Clinical Knowledge Representation (CKR) as a formal architectural layer in computational medicine. CKR is defined as a semantic computational infrastructure that explicitly represents clinical knowledge through entities, attributes, relationships, evidence, provenance, temporality, context, and confidence, enabling explainable reasoning by both humans and artificial intelligence systems. We formalize CKR as an 8-tuple (E, A, R, V, P, T, C, F) with mathematical properties, specify a five-level provenance model, and demonstrate through systematic analysis that no existing standard or framework — including computable-knowledge and provenance models — satisfies all eight required properties of a clinical knowledge claim simultaneously. We further show that this gap constitutes a structural bottleneck for five major clinical AI paradigms: foundation models, retrieval-augmented generation, agentic AI, neuro-symbolic AI, and explainability. CKR complements — and does not replace — DICOM, FHIR, SNOMED CT, and knowledge graphs. It is the layer that makes them composable into explicit, auditable clinical knowledge. Note: This is an author-formatted preprint, deposited to establish priority and enable open community feedback prior to formal peer review. Dr. Rafael Jacobus, DDS – ([email protected])

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.