MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009097495 · doi:10.1109/istas.2013.6613120

Wearable monitors on babies: Big data saving little people

2013· article· en· W2009097495 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carolyn McGregor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ontario Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Intensive careBig dataWearable computerHealth careAmbulatory careNeonatal intensive care unitCloud computingMedical emergencyMedicineComputer sciencePediatricsIntensive care medicineGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today 8% of Canadian babies are born premature and internationally the average is 10% These early births, are responsible for three quarters of all infant deaths in Canada. Premature infants together with ill term infants are cared for in Neonatal Intensive Care U nits (NICUs) internationally contain state of th e art medical equipment to monitor and provide life support, resulting in a significant Big Data environment. In addition, graduates of neonatal intensive care may be discharged with medical devices to support continued monitoring as ambulatory patients in and outside the ho me setting. In both NICU and ambulatory contexts wearable patient monitoring has many social implications. This research presents an assessment of the social implications of Big Data solutions for criti cal care within the context of the Artemis project that is enabling Big Data solutions for: 1) Real-ti me processing of complex intensive care physiological signals for new and earlier condition onset detection; 2) new approaches to physiological data analysis to support clinical research; and 3) cloud computing/services computing to provide rural and remote communities with greater options for a dvanced critical care within their own community healthcare facilities.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringFrench-language works237,207