MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289730999 · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2022.932411

An integration engineering framework for machine learning in healthcare

2022· article· en· W4289730999 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

VenueFrontiers in Digital Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchUniversity of TorontoCentre for Global Health ResearchHospital for Sick ChildrenPublic Health Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystem integrationComputer scienceHealth careDomain (mathematical analysis)Artificial intelligenceSoftware engineeringSystems engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objectives Machine Learning offers opportunities to improve patient outcomes, team performance, and reduce healthcare costs. Yet only a small fraction of all Machine Learning models for health care have been successfully integrated into the clinical space. There are no current guidelines for clinical model integration, leading to waste, unnecessary costs, patient harm, and decreases in efficiency when improperly implemented. Systems engineering is widely used in industry to achieve an integrated system of systems through an interprofessional collaborative approach to system design, development, and integration. We propose a framework based on systems engineering to guide the development and integration of Machine Learning models in healthcare. Methods Applied systems engineering, software engineering and health care Machine Learning software development practices were reviewed and critically appraised to establish an understanding of limitations and challenges within these domains. Principles of systems engineering were used to develop solutions to address the identified problems. The framework was then harmonized with the Machine Learning software development process to create a systems engineering-based Machine Learning software development approach in the healthcare domain. Results We present an integration framework for healthcare Artificial Intelligence that considers the entirety of this system of systems . Our proposed framework utilizes a combined software and integration engineering approach and consists of four phases: (1) Inception, (2) Preparation, (3) Development, and (4) Integration. During each phase, we present specific elements for consideration in each of the three domains of integration: The Human, The Technical System, and The Environment. There are also elements that are considered in the interactions between these domains. Conclusion Clinical models are technical systems that need to be integrated into the existing system of systems in health care. A systems engineering approach to integration ensures appropriate elements are considered at each stage of model design to facilitate model integration. Our proposed framework is based on principles of systems engineering and can serve as a guide for model development, increasing the likelihood of successful Machine Learning translation and integration.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.329 · 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