MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113852177 · doi:10.1145/1362550.1362554

Intelligent decision support in medicine

2007· article· en· W2113852177 on OpenAlexaff
Gitte Lindgaard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePaceMachine learningArtificial intelligencePersonalizationPresentation (obstetrics)Bayesian networkFeature (linguistics)Artificial neural networkClinical decision support systemBayesian probabilityDecision support systemNaive Bayes classifierData scienceBayes' theoremMedicineWorld Wide WebSupport vector machine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decision Support Systems (DSSs) are proliferating at an increasingly rapid pace in many areas of human endeavor including clinical medicine and psychology. These DSSs are typically based on Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), many of which have been shown to perform very well (e.g. Ennett, 2003). In this talk in which I am specifically concerned with medicine and e-health, I will attempt to show that Bayes' Theorem can offer an alternative and very effective approach to the design of DSSs. Bayesian models are highly adaptive in the sense that they are able to 'learn' iteratively from 'experience' without changing the underlying structure. This important feature enables customization of Bayesian models to individual users and thus to their changing needs. In e-learning contexts as well as in interventional e-health, particularly in clinical psychology, this is an important advantage, especially when courses or treatment plans are offering a range of different routes through, or different possible presentation modes of, the learning material.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207