An Infobutton For Web 2.0 Clinical Discussions: The Knowledge Linkage Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to develop an infobutton to automatically retrieve published papers corresponding to a topic-specific online clinical discussion. The knowledge linkages infobutton is designed to supplement online clinical conversations with pertinent medical literature from Pubmed. The project involves three distinct steps: 1) Clinical messages around a specific problem are grouped together into a thread. 2) These threads are processed using Metamap to link the conversations to keywords from the MeSH lexicon. 3) These keywords are used in a novel search strategy to retrieve a set of papers from Pubmed, which are then returned to the user. A pilot study using the messages from 2007 and 2008, was conducted to compare the knowledge linkage search strategy to a vector space model and extended Boolean model. The knowledge linkage model proved to be significantly better in terms of precision ( p = 0.013 and 0.003, respectively) and recall ( p = 0.351 and 0.013). Pertinent papers were returned to over 55% of the threads. This approach has demonstrated how clinicians can supplement their peer communications with evidence based research. Future work should focus on how to improve the threading and keyword-mapping strategies.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".