MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4223923854 · doi:10.1093/gigascience/giac013

Benchmarking missing-values approaches for predictive models on health databases

2022· article· en· W4223923854 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Perez-Lebel, Gaël Varoquaux, Marine Le Morvan, Julie Josse, Jean‐Baptiste Poline

Bibliographic record

VenueGigaScience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence InstituteMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institute of Mental HealthMuseo delle ScienzeNational Institutes of HealthAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsMissing dataImputation (statistics)BenchmarkingComputer sciencePredictive modellingMachine learningDiscriminative modelData miningBenchmark (surveying)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
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

Citations52
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGigaScience→Same topicMachine Learning in Healthcare→French-language works237,207→