MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062172883 · doi:10.1504/ijbdi.2014.063835

Health big data analytics: current perspectives, challenges and potential solutions

2014· article· en· W2062172883 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

VenueInternational Journal of Big Data Intelligence · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBig dataData scienceComputer scienceProcess (computing)AnalyticsGuidelineHealth dataData miningKnowledge managementHealth careMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern health information systems can generate several exabytes of patient data, the so called ‘health big data’, per year. Many health managers and experts believe that with the data, it is possible to easily discover useful knowledge to improve health policies, increase patient safety and eliminate redundancies and unnecessary costs. The objective of this paper is to discuss the characteristics of health big data as well as the challenges and solutions for health big data analytics (BDA) – the process of extracting knowledge from sets of health big data – and to design and evaluate a pipelined framework for use as a guideline/reference in health BDA.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.611
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.086 · 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