MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2398872240 · doi:10.3233/jid-2016-0001

Designing the Right Framework for Healthcare Decision Support

2016· article· en· W2398872240 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Integrated Design and Process Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk analysis (engineering)Decision support systemHealth careComputer scienceStatutory lawHealthcare systemUsabilityComputer securityProcess managementKnowledge managementBusinessHuman–computer interactionPolitical scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many factors need to be taken into consideration while developing a decision support system for healthcare. This mainly involves: a) adherence to statutory regulations, b) ease of use and access, and c) protecting patient data from malicious use. Some of these requirements are intertwined creating a myriad of complexities. This leads to a substantial increase in the level of complexity involved in designing and developing the decision support system. In this paper we attempt to address some of these complexities to the reader and present a framework for a solution that could be modified if required to deal with these aforementioned complexities.

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 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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.314
GPT teacher head0.560
Teacher spread0.246 · 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