A Simulation Study to Advance Human-Centred Artificial Intelligence via Digital Citizen Science: Can Large Language Models Transform Current Approaches to Missing Data Imputation?
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Missing data is a persistent challenge in digital health research, and traditional approaches like Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) may not capture complex patterns. While large language models (LLMs) could offer a viable alternative, their use in this context remains understudied. Moreover, a critical gap remains in embedding human-centred artificial intelligence (AI) approaches that integrate equity, transparency, and stakeholder participation. Digital citizen science, which leverages citizen-owned devices for ethical, participatory big data collection, offers a foundation to advance such approaches in digital health. Objective To evaluate and compare the imputation accuracy of MICE with the OpenAI o3 model for categorical variables in a simulated digital health dataset under different missingness mechanisms and levels, while situating this evaluation within the broader vision of human-centred AI enabled by digital citizen science. Methods A complete digital health dataset collected through a digital citizen science platform was used to simulate missingness under Missing at Random (MAR) and Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) at 10%, 25%, and 50%. MICE used logistic regression with five imputations and ten iterations per chain. For the o3 model, structured prompts were generated for each missing entry using all available non-missing variables from the same record. Both methods were evaluated on each simulated dataset using classification accuracy and a closeness metric representing similarity to the original data. Statistical differences were tested with a two-sample Z-test, and misclassification patterns were examined by variable type and category frequency. Results Under MAR conditions, MICE and o3 performed similarly with an average accuracy of 0.60 and 0.59, and closeness metrics of 0.83 and 0.85, respectively. Under MCAR, both methods achieved 0.59 accuracy, with closeness metrics of 0.84 and 0.85. No statistically significant differences were found across conditions (all p > 0.05). Conclusion While MICE remains preferred for continuous data, the o3 model shows promise as a complementary tool for categorical imputation in smaller datasets. Beyond methodological comparability, this study demonstrates how digital citizen science can serve as an ethical foundation for embedding human-centred AI into digital health research, positioning large language models not only as technical tools but also as vehicles for advancing equity, transparency, and participatory innovation in healthcare.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle