MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990136351 · doi:10.1109/iccme.2013.6548221

A research infrastructure for real-time evaluation of predictive algorithms for intensive care units

2013· article· en· W1990136351 on OpenAlexaff
Zhengbo Zhang, Daniel Scott, Li-wei H. Lehman, Roger G. Mark

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Institutes of HealthBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
KeywordsComputer scienceHealth informaticsInformaticsBridge (graph theory)Process (computing)MATLABData miningData scienceAlgorithmHealth careMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the medical informatics, most algorithms for clinical settings are initially developed and evaluated using retrospective data. However, researchers often lack convenient methods to validate their algorithms with real-time patient data. To bridge the gap between research and clinical applications, we present a research infrastructure that grants researchers access to real-time clinical data without disturbing patient care. The infrastructure is based on the Health Level Seven (HL7) messaging standard. Admission/discharge/transfer and observation result messages (containing lab test results and vital signs) are de-identified in real-time on a hospital network and subsequently transmitted to a research network. Then the processing cluster on the research network can process incoming de-identified data for a wide variety of applications. In the research network, a translator for converting the HL7 data stream into MATLAB format is created for convenient algorithm evaluation. As an example, we evaluated a hypotension predictor using our realtime testing environment. Our infrastructure can easily be replicated in other institutions and has the potential to benefit many researchers in translational medicine.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringFrench-language works237,207