MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206558054 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.781499

Digital Twin Technology: The Future of Predicting Neurological Complications of Pediatric Cancers and Their Treatment

2022· article· en· W4206558054 on OpenAlexaff
Grace M. Thiong’o, James T. Rutka

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPremiseHealth careComputer sciencePandemicAnalyticsDigital healthArtificial intelligencePrecision medicineData scienceDiseasePsychologyMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Pathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Healthcare technologies have seen a surge in utilization during the COVID 19 pandemic. Remote patient care, virtual follow-up and other forms of futurism will likely see further adaptation both as a preparational strategy for future pandemics and due to the inevitable evolution of artificial intelligence. This manuscript theorizes the healthcare applications of digital twin technology. Digital twin is a triune concept that involves a physical model, a virtual counterpart, and the interplay between the two constructs. This interface between computer science and medicine is a new frontier with broad potential applications. We propose that digital twin technology can exhaustively and methodologically analyze the associations between a physical cancer patient and a corresponding digital counterpart with the goal of isolating predictors of neurological sequalae of disease. This proposition stems from the premise that data science can complement clinical acumen to scientifically inform the diagnostics, treatment planning and prognostication of cancer care. Specifically, digital twin could predict neurological complications through its utilization in precision medicine, modelling cancer care and treatment, predictive analytics and machine learning, and in consolidating various spectra of clinician opinions.

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)0.000
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 score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations55
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207