An Antimicrobial Prescription Surveillance System That Learns from Experience
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inappropriate prescribing of antimicrobials is a major clinical concern that affects as many as 50 percent of prescriptions. One of the difficulties of antimicrobial prescribing lies in the necessity to sequentially adjust the treatment of a patient as new clinical data become available. The lack of specialized health‐care resources and the overwhelming amount of information to process make manual surveillance unsustainable. To solve this problem, we have developed and deployed an automated antimicrobial prescription surveillance system that assists hospital pharmacists in identifying and reporting inappropriate prescriptions. Since its deployment, the system has improved antimicrobial prescribing and decreased antimicrobial use. However, the highly sensitive knowledge base used by the system leads to many false alerts. As a remedy, we are developing a machine‐learning algorithm that combines instance‐based learning and rule induction techniques to discover new rules for detecting inappropriate prescriptions from previous false alerts. In this article, we describe the system, point to results and lessons learned so far, and provide insight into the machine‐learning capability.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it