MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2966262171

Reproducibility in Machine Learning for Health

2019· article· en· W2966262171 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew B. A. McDermott, Shirly Wang, Nikki Marinsek, Rajesh Ranganath, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Luca Foschini

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Learning Representations · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceField (mathematics)ReproducibilityMachine learningScale (ratio)Artificial intelligenceData scienceHuman healthMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning for health must be reproducible to ensure reliable clinical use. We evaluated 511 scientific papers across several machine learning subfields and found that machine learning for health compared poorly to other areas regarding reproducibility metrics, such as dataset and code accessibility. We propose recommendations to address this problem.

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)0.461
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.810
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4610.810
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0040.020
Scholarly communication0.0200.018
Open science0.0070.013
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.310 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainReproducibility
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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on Learning Representations→Same topicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)→French-language works237,207→