The Outcomes of Scientific Debates Should Be Published: The Arivale Story
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an ongoing scientific debate regarding the merits and shortcomings of P4 Medicine (predictive, preventive, personalized, and participatory) and O4 Medicine (overtesting, overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and overcharging). P4 Medicine promises to revolutionize scientific wellness through longitudinal big data collection, denoted as "dense phenotyping," which could uncover early, actionable signs of disease, thus allowing earlier interventions and possible disease reversal. On the other hand, O4 Medicine draws attention to the potential side effects of P4 Medicine: overtesting, overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and overcharging fees. Preliminary data from the P4 Medicine concept have been recently published. A novel biotechnology company, Arivale, provided customers with services based on P4 Medicine principles; however it could not sustain its operations and closed its doors in April 2019. In this report, we provide our own insights as to why Arivale failed. While we do not discount that in the future, improved testing strategies may provide a path to better health, we suggest that until the evidence is provided, selling of such products to the public, especially through the "direct to consumer" approach, should be discouraged. We hope that our analysis will provide useful information for the burgeoning fields of personalized medicine, preventive medicine, and direct to consumer health testing.
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 | 0.074 | 0.290 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.010 |
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".