MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134417801 · doi:10.2196/20617

Why We Are Losing the War Against COVID-19 on the Data Front and How to Reverse the Situation

2021· article· en· W3134417801 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Prieto‐Merino, Rui Providência, Jorge Bacallao Gallestey, Reecha Sofat, Sheng‐Chia Chung, Henry Potts

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIRx Med · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBig dataNothingPetabyteCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Health careClinical trialResource (disambiguation)Data scienceComputer scienceMedicineInternet privacyMedical emergencyDiseaseData miningPathologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)Economic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With over 117 million COVID-19-positive cases declared and the death count approaching 3 million, we would expect that the highly digitalized health systems of high-income countries would have collected, processed, and analyzed large quantities of clinical data from patients with COVID-19. Those data should have served to answer important clinical questions such as: what are the risk factors for becoming infected? What are good clinical variables to predict prognosis? What kinds of patients are more likely to survive mechanical ventilation? Are there clinical subphenotypes of the disease? All these, and many more, are crucial questions to improve our clinical strategies against the epidemic and save as many lives as possible. One might assume that in the era of big data and machine learning, there would be an army of scientists crunching petabytes of clinical data to answer these questions. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Our health systems have proven to be completely unprepared to generate, in a timely manner, a flow of clinical data that could feed these analyses. Despite gigabytes of data being generated every day, the vast quantity is locked in secure hospital data servers and is not being made available for analysis. Routinely collected clinical data are, by and large, regarded as a tool to inform decisions about individual patients, and not as a key resource to answer clinical questions through statistical analysis. The initiatives to extract COVID-19 clinical data are often promoted by private groups of individuals and not by health systems, and are uncoordinated and inefficient. The consequence is that we have more clinical data on COVID-19 than on any other epidemic in history, but we have failed to analyze this information quickly enough to make a difference. In this viewpoint, we expose this situation and suggest concrete ideas that health systems could implement to dynamically analyze their routine clinical data, becoming learning health systems and reversing the current situation.

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)0.076
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.202
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0760.202
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0100.024
Scholarly communication0.0290.071
Open science0.0070.014
Research integrity0.0250.060
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.025

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIRx MedSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207