MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2522746188 · doi:10.3389/fmed.2016.00039

Distributed Cognition and Process Management Enabling Individualized Translational Research: The NIH Undiagnosed Diseases Program Experience

2016· article· en· W2522746188 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda E. Links, David D. Draper, Elizabeth Lee, Jessica Guzman, Zaheer M. Valivullah, Valerie V. Maduro, Vlad Lebedev, Maxim Didenko, Garrick Tomlin, Michael Brudno, Marta Gîrdea, Sergiu Dumitriu, Melissa Haendel, Chris Mungall, Damian Smedley, Harry Hochheiser, Andrew Arnold, Bert Coessens, Steven Verhoeven, William P. Bone, David R. Adams, Cornelius F. Boerkoel, William A. Gahl, Murat Sincan

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Human Genome Research InstituteResearch Institute for Information Technology, Kyushu UniversityCommon FundNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsTranslational researchMultidisciplinary approachProcess (computing)UsabilityScalabilityComputer scienceCloud computingKnowledge managementCognitionProcess managementData scienceMedicineEngineeringHuman–computer interactionPsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National Institutes of Health Undiagnosed Diseases Program (NIH UDP) applies translational research systematically to diagnose patients with undiagnosed diseases. The challenge is to implement an information system enabling scalable translational research. The authors hypothesized that similar complex problems are resolvable through process management and the distributed cognition of communities. The team, therefore, built the NIH UDP integrated collaboration system (UDPICS) to form virtual collaborative multidisciplinary research networks or communities. UDPICS supports these communities through integrated process management, ontology-based phenotyping, biospecimen management, cloud-based genomic analysis, and an electronic laboratory notebook. UDPICS provided a mechanism for efficient, transparent, and scalable translational research and thereby addressed many of the complex and diverse research and logistical problems of the NIH UDP. Full definition of the strengths and deficiencies of UDPICS will require formal qualitative and quantitative usability and process improvement measurement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MedicineSame topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207