Applications of artificial neural networks in health care organizational decision-making: A scoping review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health care organizations are leveraging machine-learning techniques, such as artificial neural networks (ANN), to improve delivery of care at a reduced cost. Applications of ANN to diagnosis are well-known; however, ANN are increasingly used to inform health care management decisions. We provide a seminal review of the applications of ANN to health care organizational decision-making. We screened 3,397 articles from six databases with coverage of Health Administration, Computer Science and Business Administration. We extracted study characteristics, aim, methodology and context (including level of analysis) from 80 articles meeting inclusion criteria. Articles were published from 1997-2018 and originated from 24 countries, with a plurality of papers (26 articles) published by authors from the United States. Types of ANN used included ANN (36 articles), feed-forward networks (25 articles), or hybrid models (23 articles); reported accuracy varied from 50% to 100%. The majority of ANN informed decision-making at the micro level (61 articles), between patients and health care providers. Fewer ANN were deployed for intra-organizational (meso- level, 29 articles) and system, policy or inter-organizational (macro- level, 10 articles) decision-making. Our review identifies key characteristics and drivers for market uptake of ANN for health care organizational decision-making to guide further adoption of this technique.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it