MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988714057 · doi:10.3233/shti190444

Using an Artificial Intelligence-Based Argument Theory to Generate Automated Patient Education Dialogues for Families of Children with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis

2019· article· en· W2988714057 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Rose‐Davis, Elizabeth Stringer, Samina Abidi

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)ArthritisJuvenileCognitionQuality (philosophy)PsychologyMedicineComputer sciencePsychiatryEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) is the most common chronic rheumatic disease of childhood, with outcomes including pain, prolonged dependence on medications, and disability. Parents of children with JIA report being overwhelmed by the volume of information in the patient education materials that are available to them. This paper addresses this educational gap by applying an artificial intelligence method, based on an extended model of argument, to design and implement a dialogue system that allows users get the educational material they need, when they need it. In the developed system, the studied model of argument was leveraged as part of the system's dialogue manager. A qualitative evaluation of the system, using cognitive walkthroughs and semi-structured interviews with JIA domain experts, suggests that these methods show great promise for providing quality information to families of children with JIA when they need it.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207