MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1644944000 · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.336

Goal-driven Modeling for Confidence-based Patient Numeracy Assessment: C-PNA

2015· article· en· W1644944000 on OpenAlexaff
Mandana Omidbakhsh, Olga Ormandjieva

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia Computer Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNumeracyArtificial intelligenceLiteracy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numeracy skill level of patients has great influence on their preferences and priorities for the treatment options concerning their healthcare. Not properly numeracy-assessed patients are prone to make inaccurate and inappropriate decisions for their medical treatments. There are many challenges that the researchers face in designing and developing patient-sensitive numeracy assessment methods. The adaptability of the numeracy assessment is considered to be one of the most important issues to address. In this paper we propose a goal-driven confidence-based model for patient numeracy assessment (C-PNA) adaptable to each individual patient. The model is empirically validated in a case study.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.185
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia Computer ScienceSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207