MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288046811 · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(22)00128-5

Reinforcement learning in ophthalmology: potential applications and challenges to implementation

2022· review· en· W4288046811 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Digital Health · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersUK Research and InnovationMoorfields Eye CharityBayer
KeywordsReinforcement learningSet (abstract data type)Computer scienceReinforcementOutcome (game theory)Error-driven learningArtificial intelligenceFocus (optics)Machine learningHuman–computer interactionPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reinforcement learning is a subtype of machine learning in which a virtual agent, functioning within a set of predefined rules, aims to maximise a specified outcome or reward. This agent can consider multiple variables and many parallel actions at once to optimise its reward, thereby solving complex, sequential problems. Clinical decision making requires physicians to optimise patient outcomes within a set practice framework and, thus, presents considerable opportunity for the implementation of reinforcement learning-driven solutions. We provide an overview of reinforcement learning, and focus on potential applications within ophthalmology. We also explore the challenges associated with development and implementation of reinforcement learning solutions and discuss possible approaches to address them.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.301 · 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