MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309265332 · doi:10.2196/40039

Perspective Toward Machine Learning Implementation in Pediatric Medicine: Mixed Methods Study

2022· article· en· W4309265332 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Natasha Alexander, Catherine Aftandilian, Lin Lawrence Guo, Erin Plenert, Jose Posada, Jason Fries, Scott L. Fleming, Alistair E. W. Johnson, Nigam H. Shah, Lillian Sung

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImplementationWorkloadQualitative researchMachine learningHealth careMedicineQualitative propertyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Given the costs of machine learning implementation, a systematic approach to prioritizing which models to implement into clinical practice may be valuable. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to determine the health care attributes respondents at 2 pediatric institutions rate as important when prioritizing machine learning model implementation. The secondary objective was to describe their perspectives on implementation using a qualitative approach. METHODS: In this mixed methods study, we distributed a survey to health system leaders, physicians, and data scientists at 2 pediatric institutions. We asked respondents to rank the following 5 attributes in terms of implementation usefulness: the clinical problem was common, the clinical problem caused substantial morbidity and mortality, risk stratification led to different actions that could reasonably improve patient outcomes, reducing physician workload, and saving money. Important attributes were those ranked as first or second most important. Individual qualitative interviews were conducted with a subsample of respondents. RESULTS: Among 613 eligible respondents, 275 (44.9%) responded. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 17 respondents. The most common important attributes were risk stratification leading to different actions (205/275, 74.5%) and clinical problem causing substantial morbidity or mortality (177/275, 64.4%). The attributes considered least important were reducing physician workload and saving money. Qualitative interviews consistently prioritized implementations that improved patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents prioritized machine learning model implementation where risk stratification would lead to different actions and clinical problems that caused substantial morbidity and mortality. Implementations that improved patient outcomes were prioritized. These results can help provide a framework for machine learning model implementation.

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 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)0.136
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.124
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1360.124
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.540
Teacher spread0.418 · 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.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207