OpenClinicalAI: enabling AI to diagnose diseases in real-world clinical settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper quantitatively reveals the state-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice AI systems only achieve acceptable performance on the stringent conditions that all categories of subjects are known, which we call closed clinical settings, but fail to work in real-world clinical settings. Compared to the diagnosis task in the closed setting, real-world clinical settings pose severe challenges, and we must treat them differently. We build a clinical AI benchmark named Clinical AIBench to set up real-world clinical settings to facilitate researches. We propose an open, dynamic machine learning framework and develop an AI system named OpenClinicalAI to diagnose diseases in real-world clinical settings. The first versions of Clinical AIBench and OpenClinicalAI target Alzheimer's disease. In the real-world clinical setting, OpenClinicalAI significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art AI system. In addition, OpenClinicalAI develops personalized diagnosis strategies to avoid unnecessary testing and seamlessly collaborates with clinicians. It is promising to be embedded in the current medical systems to improve medical services.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".