Applications of artificial intelligence in clinical management, research, and health administration: imaging perspectives with a focus on hemophilia
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Joints of persons with hemophilia are frequently affected by repetitive hemarthrosis. In this paper, concepts, perks, and quirks of the use of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and deep learning are reviewed within clinical and research contexts of hemophilia and other blood-induced disorders' patient care, targeted to the imaging diagnosis of hemophilic joints, under the perspective of different stakeholders (radiologists, hematologists, nurses, physiotherapists, technologists, researchers, managers, and patients/caregivers). AREAS COVERED: Rubrics that determine the suitability of the utilization of AI in blood-induced disorders' patient care, including diagnosis and follow-up of patients are discussed, focusing on features in which AI can replace or augment the role of radiology in the clinical management and in research of patients. Insights on features in the design and conduct of AI projects in which the human intervention remains critical are provided. EXPERT OPINION: The author discusses research concepts in radiogenomics, and challenges for the utilization of AI in different healthcare fields such as patient safety, data sharing and privacy regulations, workforce education and future jobs' shortage. Finally, the author proposes alternatives and potential solutions to mitigate challenges in successfully deploying ML algorithms into clinical practice.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it