MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043075161 · doi:10.1080/07359683.2015.1000704

How Health Managers Can Use Data Mining for Predicting Individuals’ Risks of Contracting Nosocomial Pneumonia

2015· article· en· W2043075161 on OpenAlexaff
Louis Duclos-Gosselin, Benny Rigaux-Bricmont, René Y. Darmon

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Marketing Quarterly · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverfittingDecision treeTrimmingBoosting (machine learning)Computer scienceHealth careGenetic algorithmData miningActuarial scienceMachine learningBusinessEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explains how managers can use a new data-mining technique for solving problems related to individual risks of contracting nosocomial pneumonia. Using the genetic algorithm, a search technique provides practitioners with an optimal choice of parameters for Gini boosting type decision tree models. Thus, managers and technicians can choose better models. These new parameters are genetically controlled: number of trees, depth of trees, trimming factor, cross-validation (to avoid overfitting), proportion of the population used, and the minimum size to split a node. This technique has been satisfactorily tested on health data.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.185 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Marketing QuarterlySame topicAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207