Deep learning for healthcare decision making with EMRs
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
Computer aid technology is widely applied in decision-making and outcome assessment of healthcare delivery, in which modeling knowledge and expert experience is technically important. However, the conventional rule-based models are incapable of capturing the underlying knowledge because they are incapable of simulating the complexity of human brains and highly rely on feature representation of problem domains. Thus we attempt to apply a deep model to overcome this weakness. The deep model can simulate the thinking procedure of human and combine feature representation and learning in a unified model. A modified version of convolutional deep belief networks is used as an effective training method for large-scale data sets. Then it is tested by two instances: a dataset on hypertension retrieved from a HIS system, and a dataset on Chinese medical diagnosis and treatment prescription from a manual converted electronic medical record (EMR) database. The experimental results indicate that the proposed deep model is able to reveal previously unknown concepts and performs much better than the conventional shallow models.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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