MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909137243 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0210232

The PLOS ONE collection on machine learning in health and biomedicine: Towards open code and open data

2019· review· en· W2909137243 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthEuropean Commission
KeywordsBiomedicineData scienceHealth careComputer scienceCode (set theory)Open dataData sharingData collectionArtificial intelligenceMedicineWorld Wide WebBioinformaticsPolitical scienceAlternative medicineBiologySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent years have seen a surge of studies in machine learning in health and biomedicine, driven by digitalization of healthcare environments and increasingly accessible computer systems for conducting analyses. Many of us believe that these developments will lead to significant improvements in patient care. Like many academic disciplines, however, progress is hampered by lack of code and data sharing. In bringing together this PLOS ONE collection on machine learning in health and biomedicine, we sought to focus on the importance of reproducibility, making it a requirement, as far as possible, for authors to share data and code alongside their papers.

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 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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesOpen science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.000
Open science0.0060.014
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 head0.710
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.212 · 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