MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3100141195 · doi:10.1111/jebm.12418

Analytics with artificial intelligence to advance the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome

2020· review· en· W3100141195 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evidence-Based Medicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsARDSAnalyticsMedicinePopulationArtificial intelligenceBig dataIdentification (biology)Computer scienceIntensive care medicineMachine learningData scienceData miningInternal medicineLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) has found its way into clinical studies in the era of big data. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or acute lung injury (ALI) is a clinical syndrome that encompasses a heterogeneous population. Management of such heterogeneous patient population is a big challenge for clinicians. With accumulating ALI datasets being publicly available, more knowledge could be discovered with sophisticated analytics. We reviewed literatures with big data analytics to understand the role of AI for improving the caring of patients with ALI/ARDS. Many studies have utilized the electronic medical records (EMR) data for the identification and prognostication of ARDS patients. As increasing number of ARDS clinical trials data is open to public, secondary analysis on these combined datasets provide a powerful way of finding solution to clinical questions with a new perspective. AI techniques such as Classification and Regression Tree (CART) and artificial neural networks (ANN) have also been successfully used in the investigation of ARDS problems. Individualized treatment of ARDS could be implemented with a support from AI as we are now able to classify ARDS into many subphenotypes by unsupervised machine learning algorithms. Interestingly, these subphenotypes show different responses to a certain intervention. However, current analytics involving ARDS have not fully incorporated information from omics such as transcriptome, proteomics, daily activities and environmental conditions. AI technology is assisting us to interpret complex data of ARDS patients and enable us to further improve the management of ARDS patients in future with individual treatment plans.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.264
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.164 · 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