MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2983617361 · doi:10.21037/atm.2019.10.99

Real-life clinical data mining: generating hypotheses for evidence-based medicine

2020· letter· en· W2983617361 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Emmanuel Bibault

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Translational Medicine · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialRandomized controlled trialMedicineComputer scienceData scienceData miningIntensive care medicineMedical physicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Zhou et al . report in this journal a series of methodological reviews of clinical prediction model construction in 16 sections. They thoroughly explain the concept, current application and construction methods required to create such models with real-life data. Evidence-based medicine is based on randomized clinical trials designed to answer specific questions, like the efficacy or toxicity of a treatment.

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)0.075
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.356
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0750.356
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0180.033
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.005

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 head0.670
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Translational MedicineSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207