Data Liberation and Crowdsourcing in Medical Research: The Intersection of Collective and Artificial Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In spite of an exponential increase in the volume of medical data produced globally, much of these data are inaccessible to those who might best use them to develop improved health care solutions through the application of advanced analytics such as artificial intelligence. Data liberation and crowdsourcing represent two distinct but interrelated approaches to bridging existing data silos and accelerating the pace of innovation internationally. In this article, we examine these concepts in the context of medical artificial intelligence research, summarizing their potential benefits, identifying potential pitfalls, and ultimately making a case for their expanded use going forward. A practical example of a crowdsourced competition using an international medical imaging dataset is provided. Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Data Liberation, Crowdsourcing © RSNA, 2023
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.091 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.035 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".