MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892370045 · doi:10.1038/s41746-018-0058-9

Health intelligence: how artificial intelligence transforms population and personalized health

2018· editorial· en· W2892370045 on OpenAlexaff
Arash Shaban‐Nejad, Martin Michalowski, David L. Buckeridge

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Digital Medicine · 2018
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careData scienceAnalyticsClinical decision support systemBig dataComputer scienceGeocodingArtificial intelligenceVisualizationDecision support systemKnowledge managementData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in computational and data sciences for data management, integration, mining, classification, filtering, visualization along with engineering innovations in medical devices have prompted demands for more comprehensive and coherent strategies to address the most fundamental questions in health care and medicine. Theory, methods, and models from artificial intelligence (AI) are changing the health care landscape in clinical and community settings and have already shown promising results in multiple applications in healthcare including, integrated health information systems, patient education, geocoding health data, social media analytics, epidemic and syndromic surveillance, predictive modeling and decision support, mobile health, and medical imaging (e.g. radiology and retinal image analyses). Health intelligence uses tools and methods from artificial intelligence and data science to provide better insights, reduce waste and wait time, and increase speed, service efficiencies, level of accuracy, and productivity in health care and medicine.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0130.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.352 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations256
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Digital MedicineSame topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207