MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Medical Text Analytics Tools for Search and Classification

2009· article· en· W127143195 on OpenAlexaff
Jimmy Xiangji Huang, Aijun An, Vivian Hu, Karen Tu

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAnalyticsData scienceInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A text-analytic tool has been developed that accepts clinical medical data as input in order to produce patient details. The integrated tool has the following four characteristics. 1) It has a graphical user interface. 2) It has a free-text search tool that is designed to retrieve records using keywords such as "MI" for myocardial infarction. The result set is a display of those sentences in the medical records that contain the keywords. 3) It has three tools to classify patients based on the likelihood of being diagnosed for myocardial infarction, hypertension, or their smoking status. 4) A summary is generated for each patient selected. Large medical data sets provided by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences were used during the project.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.391
GPT teacher head0.577
Teacher spread0.186 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207