MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388129274 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.2023-0338

Are Disease Classification Criteria for Diagnosis or for Research? In Fact, for Neither

2023· editorial· en· W4388129274 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hasan Yazıcı, Yusuf Yazıcı

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2023
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiseaseComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicineData sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A popular viewpoint is that disease classification criteria, usually developed for conditions with uncertain disease mechanisms, should not be used in diagnosing patients. They are for research purposes and aim to homogenize study patient characteristics to better interpret research outcomes from diverse research centers.1

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.109
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.109
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0110.010
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0180.043
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.014

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.457
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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreEditorial

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments→French-language works237,207→