MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039087190 · doi:10.5539/cis.v13n3p73

Integrating Radiology into an AI System for Physician Decision Making

2020· article· en· W3039087190 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer and Information Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePlan (archaeology)RadiographyExtension (predicate logic)Work (physics)Medical physicsRadiologyArtificial intelligenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over time, physicians gather a vast amount of data such as radiographic images, medical procedures, treatments, and insurance coverage about the patients. A Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) system is developed to organize and retrieve such data to aid physicians in making a diagnosis and formulating a treatment plan for patients with similar traits. This research is an extension of the earlier work presented by the authors. Our earlier research did not consider radiographic images, although radiology plays a vital role in diagnosing and treating patients. Currently, a new algorithm is created to retrieve and organize information from the CBR system to add radiographic images to the patient’s case data. This system is tested and the performance results prove that the acceptance rate achieved by this system is higher than that of the earlier system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.009
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.261 · 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