MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283328223 · doi:10.1007/s00247-022-05426-3

European Society of Paediatric Radiology Artificial Intelligence taskforce: a new taskforce for the digital age

2022· article· en· W4283328223 on OpenAlexaff
Lene Bjerke Laborie, Jaishree Naidoo, Erika Pace, Pierluigi Ciet, Christine Eade, Matthias Wagner, Thierry A.G.M. Huisman, Susan C. Shelmerdine

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Radiology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsTask forceTask (project management)MedicineBrainstormingNeuroradiologyInterventional radiologyPediatric RadiologyRadiologyArtificial intelligenceManagementComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new task force dedicated to artificial intelligence (AI) with respect to paediatric radiology was created in 2021 at the International Paediatric Radiology (IPR) meeting in Rome, Italy (a joint society meeting by the European Society of Pediatric Radiology [ESPR] and the Society for Pediatric Radiology [SPR]). The concept of a separate task force dedicated to AI was borne from an ESPR-led international survey of health care professionals' opinions, expectations and concerns regarding AI integration within children's imaging departments. In this survey, the majority (> 80%) of ESPR respondents supported the creation of a task force and helped define our key objectives. These include providing educational content about AI relevant for paediatric radiologists, brainstorming ideas for future projects and collaborating on AI-related studies with respect to collating data sets, de-identifying images and engaging in multi-case, multi-reader studies. This manuscript outlines the starting point of the ESPR AI task force and where we wish to go.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.697

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric RadiologySame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207