MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390338652 · doi:10.1182/blood.2023022981

Deep learning for platelet transfusion

2023· editorial· en· W4390338652 on OpenAlexaff
Na Li, Douglas G. Down

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2023
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlateletMedicinePlatelet transfusionIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this issue of Blood, Engelke et al 1 introduced a deep learning approach, specifically long short-term memory (LSTM) models, to predict the need for a platelet transfusion within the next 24 hours based on static and timedependent patient data.Platelets have a short shelf-life, which makes logistics challenging to ensure their availability when and where needed.As a result, wastage is often high.Given that platelets are donated by volunteers and are costly to the community, there is a need to make better use of the available platelet supply.The models in the study by Engelke et al explore the potential of deep learning in predicting patient platelet transfusions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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 venueBloodSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207