MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4290775674 · doi:10.2196/36199

Application of Artificial Intelligence in Shared Decision Making: Scoping Review

2022· article· en· W4290775674 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi, Michelle Cwintal, Yuhui Huang, Pooria Ghadiri, Roland Grad, Dan Poenaru, Geneviève Gore, Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun, France Légaré, Pierre Pluye

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMcGill University Health CentreJewish General HospitalCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-NationaleMcGill UniversityMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsSystematic reviewGrey literaturePsychological interventionMEDLINEHealth careGuidelineInclusion (mineral)Identification (biology)Computer scienceMedicineArtificial intelligenceData sciencePsychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.128
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.368
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1280.368
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.011
Bibliometrics0.0500.049
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0080.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations120
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical Informatics→Same topicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare→French-language works237,207→