On the application of multi-class classification in physical therapy recommendation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recommending optimal rehabilitation intervention for injured workers that would lead to successful return-to-work (RTW) is a challenge for clinicians. Currently, the clinicians are unable to identify with complete confidence which intervention is best for a patient and the referral is often made in trial and error fashion. Only 58% recommendations are successful in our dataset. We aim to develop an interpretable decision support system using machine learning to assist the clinicians. We proposed an alternate ripper (ARIPPER) combined with a hybrid re-sampling technique, and a balanced weighted random forests (BWRF) ensemble method respectively, in order to tackle the multi-class imbalance, class overlap and noise problem in real world application data. The final models have shown promising potential in classification compared to human baseline and has been integrated into a web-based decision-support tool that requires additional validation in a clinical sample.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it