MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904063581 · doi:10.12968/hmed.2018.79.12.676

The role of artificial intelligence in orthopaedic surgery

2018· review· en· W2904063581 on OpenAlexaff
Jaykar R. Panchmatia, Michael Visenio, Trishan Panch

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Hospital Medicine · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStatus quoHealth careProcess (computing)Quality (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite significant advances in orthopaedic surgery, variability still exists between providers and practice locations, and process inefficiencies are found throughout the health care continuum. Evolving technologies, namely artificial intelligence, challenge the status quo by improving patient care in four areas: diagnosis, management, research and systems analysis. Artificial intelligence shows promise in promoting practice efficiency, personalizing patient care, improving institutional research capacity, and expanding high quality orthopaedic care to lower resource settings. Physicians should be involved in the development of artificial intelligence algorithms to ensure that patients derive maximum benefit from new advances while considering the ethical challenges of implementation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.300 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations43
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Hospital MedicineSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207