MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2220346254 · doi:10.1109/wcitca.2015.7367038

PICO extraction by combining the robustness of machine-learning methods with the rule-based methods

2015· article· en· W2220346254 on OpenAlexaff
Samir Chabou, Michal Iglewski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceFeature extractionMachine learningData miningPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine-learning methods (MLMs) are robust methods in the extraction of the information; they have been also used in the extraction of PICO elements in order to answer clinical questions; MLMs are only used at coarse-grained level in PICO extraction, because of lack of training corpora for PICO at the fine-grained level. Coarse-grained level cannot explore the semantics within the sentence for use as a means of relevance between different answers. We propose a hybrid approach combining the robustness of MLMs and the fine grained level of RBMs to enhance PICO extraction process and facilitate the validity and the pertinence of the answers to clinic questions formulated with the PICO framework.

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)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207