Improvement and automation of artificial neural networks to estimate medical outcomes
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lengthy process of manually optimizing a feedforward backpropagation artificial neural network (ANN) provided the incentive to develop an automated system that could fine-tune the network parameters without user supervision. A new stopping criterion was introduced--the logarithmic-sensitivity index--that manages a good balance between sensitivity and specificity of the output classification. The automated network automatically monitored the classification performance to determine when was the best time to stop training-after no improvement in the performance measure (either highest correct classification rate, lowest mean squared error or highest log-sensitivity index value) occurred in the subsequent 500 epochs. Experiments were performed on three medical databases: an adult intensive care unit, a neonatal intensive care unit and a coronary surgery patient database. The optimal network parameter settings found by the automated system were similar to those found manually. The results showed that the automated networks performed equally well or better than the manually optimized ANNs, and the best classification performance was achieved using the log-sensitivity index as a stopping criterion.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it