MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220902548 · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(22)00030-9

Building an evidence standards framework for artificial intelligence-enabled digital health technologies

2022· article· en· W4220902548 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Digital Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilLeverhulme TrustNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNovo Nordisk FondenCanada Foundation for InnovationAlan Turing InstituteHealth FoundationWellcome Trust
KeywordsHealth technologyDigital healthExcellenceStakeholderScopusHealth careQuality (philosophy)Health informatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health technology assessment (HTA) programmes—as exemplified by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) HTA programme in the United Kingdom1—evaluate health technologies for their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness after regulatory approval. The purpose of this evaluation system is to provide robust, evidence-based guidance through which key decision makers, principally at a health-system level, can understand the clinical and economic consequences of adopting a given technology.

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)0.577
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.518
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5770.518
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.014
Bibliometrics0.0440.018
Science and technology studies0.0100.030
Scholarly communication0.0370.036
Open science0.0280.031
Research integrity0.0430.040
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.288
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations30
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Digital HealthSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207