Retracted: An Artificial Intelligence Fusion Model for Cardiac Emergency Decision Making: Application and Robustness Analysis
Post-publication record
OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During cardiac emergency medical treatment, reducing the incidence of avoidable adverse events, ensuring the safety of patients, and generally improving the quality and efficiency of medical treatment have been important research topics in theoretical and practical circles. OBJECTIVE: This paper examines the robustness of the decision-making reasoning process from the overall perspective of the cardiac emergency medical system. METHODS: The principle of robustness was introduced into our study on the quality and efficiency of cardiac emergency decision making. We propose the concept of robustness for complex medical decision making by targeting the problem of low reasoning efficiency and accuracy in cardiac emergency decision making. The key bottlenecks such as anti-interference capability, fault tolerance, and redundancy were studied. The rules of knowledge acquisition and transfer in the decision-making process were systematically analyzed to reveal the core role of knowledge reasoning. RESULTS: The robustness threshold method was adopted to construct the robustness criteria group of the system, and the fusion and coordination mechanism was realized through information entropy, information gain, and mutual information methods. CONCLUSIONS: A set of fusion models and robust threshold methods such as the R2CMIFS (treatment mode of fibroblastic sarcoma) model and the RTCRF (clinical trial observation mode) model were proposed. Our study enriches the theoretical research on robustness in this field.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".