MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953580259 · doi:10.15173/sciential.v1i2.2097

Artificial Intelligence Can Improve the Healthcare System

2019· article· en· W2953580259 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Anchana Kuganesan

Bibliographic record

VenueSciential - McMaster Undergraduate Science Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHealth careArtificial intelligenceApplications of artificial intelligenceCognitive computingCognitionHuman–computer interactionData scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a computer system used to model human cognitive functions, intelligence, and behaviour. Components include both, a virtual and a physical aspect. Virtual aspects of AI include algorithms and neural networks instilled within the system to execute its assignments. Physical components include the entity in conjunction with a code. 1 AI is currently being developed by Nvidia Corporation, Alphabet, Twilio, Amazon, Micron Technology, Microsoft Corp., Baidu, Intel Corp., Facebook, and Tencent. 2 Expanding AI into the health care system can be beneficial for preventative care, patient safety, and reducing treatment costs for families. AI has proven to be useful in machine learning, thus, it can be programmed to complete specific tasks. By performing tasks such as data interpretation, the amount of time that it takes for a physician to consult patients regarding their results will be reduced. In addition, AI is capable of analyzing medical images to identify tumours and it has previously been used in various other branches of medicine such as neurology and cardiology. Overall, AI has great potential to improve the health care industry in North America and worldwide. However, potential violations while utilizing personal patient data must be addressed whilst modifying this technology.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.013
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.013

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSciential - McMaster Undergraduate Science JournalSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207