Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning in Respiratory Medicine and Potential Role in Asthma and COPD Diagnosis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning, a subset of AI, are increasingly used in medicine. AI excels at performing well-defined tasks, such as image recognition; for example, classifying skin biopsy lesions, determining diabetic retinopathy severity, and detecting brain tumors. This article provides an overview of the use of AI in medicine and particularly in respiratory medicine, where it is used to evaluate lung cancer images, diagnose fibrotic lung disease, and more recently is being developed to aid the interpretation of pulmonary function tests and the diagnosis of a range of obstructive and restrictive lung diseases. The development and validation of AI algorithms requires large volumes of well-structured data, and the algorithms must work with variable levels of data quality. It is important that clinicians understand how AI can function in the context of heterogeneous conditions such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease where diagnostic criteria overlap, how AI use fits into everyday clinical practice, and how issues of patient safety should be addressed. AI has a clear role in providing support for doctors in the clinical workplace, but its relatively recent introduction means that confidence in its use still has to be fully established. Overall, AI is expected to play a key role in aiding clinicians in the diagnosis and management of respiratory diseases in the future, and it will be exciting to see the benefits that arise for patients and doctors from its use in everyday clinical practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it