MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2786252700

AFGuide System to Support Personalized Management of Atrial Fibrillation

2017· article· en· W2786252700 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Michalowski, Wojtek Michalowski, Dympna O’Sullivan, Syzmon Wilk, Marc Carrier

Bibliographic record

VenueNORMA · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecision support systemPreferenceClinical decision support systemAtrial fibrillationComputer scienceMedicineKnowledge managementArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common arrhythmia with clinical significance, is a serious public health problem. Yet a number of studies show that current AF management is suboptimal due to a knowledge gap between primary care physicians and evidence-based treatment recommendations. This gap is caused by a number of barriers such as a lack of knowledge about new therapies, challenges associated with multi-morbidity, or a lack of patient engagement in therapy planning. The decision support tools proposed to address these barriers handle individual barriers but none of them tackle them comprehensively. Responding to this challenge, we propose AFGuide -- a clinical decision support system to educate and support primary care physicians in developing evidence-based and optimal AF therapies that take into account multi-morbid conditions and patient preferences. AFGuide relies on artificial intelligence techniques (logical reasoning) and preference modeling techniques, and combines them with mobile computing technologies. In this paper we present the design of the system and discuss its proposed implementation and evaluation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 venueNORMASame topicBusiness Process Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207