MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106978254 · doi:10.1109/access.2020.3042342

Heath-PRIOR: An Intelligent Ensemble Architecture to Identify Risk Cases in Healthcare

2020· article· en· W3106978254 on OpenAlexafffund
Felipe Neves, Fernanda Campos, Victor Ströele, Miriam A. M. Capretz, M. Jennings, Dianne Bryant, Mário A. R. Dantas

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersUniversidade Federal de Juiz de ForaConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorGovernment of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceContext (archaeology)ArchitectureRecommender systemHealth careEnsemble learningQuality (philosophy)Machine learningPredictive analyticsArtificial intelligencePrioritizationRisk analysis (engineering)Process management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smart city environments, when applied to healthcare, improve the quality of people's lives, enabling, for instance, disease prediction and treatment monitoring. In medical settings, case prioritization is of great importance, with beneficial outcomes both in terms of patient health and physicians' daily work. Recommender systems are an alternative to automatically integrate the data generated in such environments with predictive models and recommend actions, content, or services. The data produced by smart devices are accurate and reliable for predictive and decision-making contexts. This study main purpose is to assist patients and doctors in the early detection of disease or prediction of postoperative worsening through constant monitoring. To achieve this objective, this study proposes an architecture for recommender systems applied to healthcare, which can prioritize emergency cases. The architecture brings an ensemble approach for prediction, which adopts multiple Machine Learning algorithms. The methodology used to carry out the study followed three steps. First, a systematic literature mapping, second, the construction and development of the architecture, and third, the evaluation through two case studies. The results demonstrated the feasibility of the proposal. The predictions are promising and adherent to the application context for accurate datasets with a low amount of noises or missing values.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.331 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207