MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280649106 · doi:10.3389/fped.2022.864755

Ignorance Isn't Bliss: We Must Close the Machine Learning Knowledge Gap in Pediatric Critical Care

2022· article· en· W4280649106 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Ehrmann, Vinyas Harish, Felipe Morgado, Laura C. Rosella, Alistair E. W. Johnson, Briseida Mema, Mjaye Mazwi

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pediatrics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationInstitute for Work & HealthHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineHarmIgnoranceBLISSHealth careElectronic health recordPerspective (graphical)NursingMedical educationMedical emergencyPsychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pediatric intensivists are bombarded with more patient data than ever before. Integration and interpretation of data from patient monitors and the electronic health record (EHR) can be cognitively expensive in a manner that results in delayed or suboptimal medical decision making and patient harm. Machine learning (ML) can be used to facilitate insights from healthcare data and has been successfully applied to pediatric critical care data with that intent. However, many pediatric critical care medicine (PCCM) trainees and clinicians lack an understanding of foundational ML principles. This presents a major problem for the field. We outline the reasons why in this perspective and provide a roadmap for competency-based ML education for PCCM trainees and other stakeholders.

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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.102
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.102
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.026
Scholarly communication0.0100.023
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0070.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.382
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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