MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294752011 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v27i2.18982

An Antimicrobial Prescription Surveillance System that Learns from Experience

2013· article· en· W2294752011 on OpenAlexafffund
Mathieu Beaudoin, Froduald Kabanza, Vincent Nault, Louis Valiquette

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTime Series Analysis and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMedical prescriptionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningSoftware deploymentExploitAbstractionKey (lock)Representation (politics)Function (biology)Data miningMedicineComputer securityNursingSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inappropriate prescribing of antimicrobials is a major clinical and health concern, as well as a financial burden, in hospitals worldwide. In this paper, we describe a deployed automated antimicrobial prescription surveillance system that has been assisting hospital pharmacists in identifying and reporting inappropriate antimicrobial prescriptions. One of the key characteristics of this system is its ability to learn new rules for detecting inappropriate prescriptions based on previous false alerts. The supervised learning algorithm combines instancebased learning and rule induction techniques. It exploits temporal abstraction to extract a meaningful time interval representation from raw clinical data, and applies nearest neighbor classification with a distance function on both temporal and non-temporal parameters. The learning capability is valuable both in configuring the system for initial deployment and improving its long term use. We give an overview of the application, point to lessons learned so far and provide insight into the machine learning capability.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicTime Series Analysis and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207