Conceptual Framework of Knowledge Management for Ethical Decision-Making Support in Neonatal Intensive Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research is built on the belief that artificial intelligence estimations need to be integrated into clinical social context to create value for health-care decisions. In sophisticated neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), decisions to continue or discontinue aggressive treatment are an integral part of clinical practice. High-quality evidence supports clinical decision-making, and a decision-aid tool based on specific outcome information for individual NICU patients will provide significant support for parents and caregivers in making difficult "ethical" treatment decisions. In our approach, information on a newborn patient's likely outcomes is integrated with the physician's interpretation and parents' perspectives into codified knowledge. Context-sensitive content adaptation delivers personalized and customized information to a variety of users, from physicians to parents. The system provides structuralized knowledge translation and exchange between all participants in the decision, facilitating collaborative decision-making that involves parents at every stage on whether to initiate, continue, limit, or terminate intensive care for their infant.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".