Software Architecture for Automated Assessment of Prescription Writing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prescribing skills are a crucial competency in medical practice considering the increasing numbers of medications available and the increasingly complex patients with multiple diseases faced in clinical practice. Medical students need to become proficient in these skills during training, as required by medical licensing colleges. Not only is teaching the fundamentals of safe and cost-effective prescribing to medical students challenging but evaluating their prescribing skills by faculty members is difficult and time consuming. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the interest in clinically relevant online exams, including automated assessment of short answer style questions. The goal of this project was to design a software to automate the assessment of learners' prescriptions written during low stakes formative assessments. After establishing the components of a legal prescription with multiple medications, and identifying the sources of errors in prescribing and prescribing assessment, we designed and validated an architecture and developed a prototype for automated parsing of learner prescriptions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it