A new approach to training back‐propagation artificial neural networks: empirical evaluation on ten data sets from clinical studies
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
We present a new approach to training back-propagation artificial neural nets (BP-ANN) based on regularization and cross-validation and on initialization by a logistic regression (LR) model. The new approach is expected to produce a BP-ANN predictor at least as good as the LR-based one. We have applied the approach to ten data sets of biomedical interest and systematically compared BP-ANN and LR. In all data sets, taking deviance as criterion, the BP-ANN predictor outperforms the LR predictor used in the initialization, and in six cases the improvement is statistically significant. The other evaluation criteria used (C-index, MSE and error rate) yield variable results, but, on the whole, confirm that, in practical situations of clinical interest, proper training may significantly improve the predictive performance of a BP-ANN.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it