MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030381164 · doi:10.1002/sim.1106

Prediction trees with soft nodes for binary outcomes

2002· article· en· W2030381164 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicStatistical and Computational Modeling
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart InstituteMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEvent (particle physics)NoveltyTree (set theory)Data miningData setSet (abstract data type)Node (physics)AlgorithmStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consider the problem of predicting the occurrence of an event, the onset of diabetes mellitus, say, from a vector of continuous and discrete predictors. We propose a new algorithm for the construction of a tree-structured predictor for the event of interest, which uses a new approach for dealing with continuous predictors. The novelty is that the tree uses splits for continuous variables. This means that at each node an individual goes to the right branch with a certain probability, function of a predictor. The predictor as well as the particular shape of the function is chosen from the data by the proposed algorithm. We evaluate its performance on several real data sets, in particular comparing it with a standard tree-growing algorithm. We also present an analysis of a well-known data set, the Pima Indian diabetes data set, to illustrate the application of the method in biostatistics.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.247 · 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