MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912438898 · doi:10.21037/atm.2019.01.13

Patient centered care for prostate cancer—how can artificial intelligence and machine learning help make the right decision for the right patient?

2019· letter· en· W2912438898 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan C. Wong, Bobby Shayegan

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Translational Medicine · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the era of advancing technologies, large volumes of data are being collected by electronic medical records and clinical registries are readily available for data mining (1). These registries, however, require appropriate analyses and interpretation to derive clinically meaningful benefits for patients. Traditional statistical models have been previously used for this purpose. However, they are incapable of processing highly dimensional data and do not actively adapt with the incorporation of new data points. Although information from clinical registries assist physicians in making data-driven decisions, there are limited opportunities for patients to directly interact with these registries to help them make informed decisions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Translational MedicineSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207