MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138114698 · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.abb1655

Reproducibility in machine learning for health research: Still a ways to go

2021· review· en· W3138114698 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew B. A. McDermott, Shirly Wang, Nikki Marinsek, Rajesh Ranganath, Luca Foschini, Marzyeh Ghassemi

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Translational Medicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteTD Bank GroupUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institutes of HealthNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsMachine learningComputer scienceReproducibilityArtificial intelligenceData scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning for health must be reproducible to ensure reliable clinical use. We evaluated 511 scientific papers across several machine learning subfields and found that machine learning for health compared poorly to other areas regarding reproducibility metrics, such as dataset and code accessibility. We propose recommendations to address this problem.

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)0.201
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.369
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2010.369
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.019
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.551
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.018 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReproducibility
GenreReview

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

Citations261
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience Translational MedicineSame topicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)French-language works237,207