Big Data and Clinicians: A Review on the State of the Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the past few decades, medically related data collection saw a huge increase, referred to as big data. These huge datasets bring challenges in storage, processing, and analysis. In clinical medicine, big data is expected to play an important role in identifying causality of patient symptoms, in predicting hazards of disease incidence or reoccurrence, and in improving primary-care quality. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to provide an overview of the features of clinical big data, describe a few commonly employed computational algorithms, statistical methods, and software toolkits for data manipulation and analysis, and discuss the challenges and limitations in this realm. METHODS: We conducted a literature review to identify studies on big data in medicine, especially clinical medicine. We used different combinations of keywords to search PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Knowledge, and Google Scholar for literature of interest from the past 10 years. RESULTS: This paper reviewed studies that analyzed clinical big data and discussed issues related to storage and analysis of this type of data. CONCLUSIONS: Big data is becoming a common feature of biological and clinical studies. Researchers who use clinical big data face multiple challenges, and the data itself has limitations. It is imperative that methodologies for data analysis keep pace with our ability to collect and store data.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".