MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604204979 · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-742-9-1

What We Can Learn from Amazon for Clinical Decision Support Systems

2017· article· en· W2604204979 on OpenAlexaff
Sidra Abid, Karim Keshavjee, Arsalan Karim, Aziz Guergachi

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversitySNC-Lavalin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmazon rainforestComputer scienceClinical decision support systemData scienceDecision support systemArtificial intelligenceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health care continue to lag behind other industries, such as retail and financial services, in the use of decision-support-like tools. Amazon is particularly prolific in the use of advanced predictive and prescriptive analytics to assist its customers to purchase more, while increasing satisfaction, retention, repeat-purchases and loyalty. How can we do the same in health care? In this paper, we explore various elements of the Amazon website and Amazon's data science and big data practices to gather inspiration for re-designing clinical decision support in the health care sector. For each Amazon element we identified, we present one or more clinical applications to help us better understand where Amazon's.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.429
GPT teacher head0.609
Teacher spread0.180 · 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.

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207