Using Decision Trees as an Expert System for Clinical Decision Support for COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
COVID-19 has impacted billions of people and health care systems globally. However, there is currently no publicly available chatbot for patients and care providers to determine the potential severity of a COVID-19 infection or the possible biological system responses and comorbidities that can contribute to the development of severe cases of COVID-19. This preliminary investigation assesses this lack of a COVID-19 case-by-case chatbot into consideration when building a decision tree with binary classification that was stratified by age and body system, viral infection, comorbidities, and any manifestations. After reviewing the relevant literature, a decision tree was constructed using a suite of tools to build a stratified framework for a chatbot application and interaction with users. A total of 212 nodes were established that were stratified from lung to heart conditions along body systems, medical conditions, comorbidities, and relevant manifestations described in the literature. This resulted in a possible 63,360 scenarios, offering a method toward understanding the data needed to validate the decision tree and highlighting the complicated nature of severe cases of COVID-19. The decision tree confirms that stratification of the viral infection with the body system while incorporating comorbidities and manifestations strengthens the framework. Despite limitations of a viable clinical decision tree for COVID-19 cases, this prototype application provides insight into the type of data required for effective decision support.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.248 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".