MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211964358 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000012833

Neurologic Diagnostics in 2035

2021· article· en· W3211964358 on OpenAlexaff
Olga Ciccarelli, Massimo Pandolfo

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological and metabolic disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCornerstoneProcess (computing)Emerging technologiesMedicineComputer sciencePsychologyData scienceMedical physicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Innovations and advances in technologies over the past few years have yielded faster and wider diagnostic applications to patients with neurologic diseases. This article focuses on the foreseeable developments of the diagnostic tools available to the neurologist in the next 15 years. Clinical judgment is and will remain the cornerstone of the diagnostic process, assisted by novel technologies, such as artificial intelligence and machine learning. Future neurologists must be educated to develop, cultivate, and rely on their clinical skills, while becoming familiar with novel, often complex, assistive technologies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicNeurological and metabolic disordersFrench-language works237,207