MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390589722 · doi:10.1038/s41380-023-02334-2

A primer on the use of machine learning to distil knowledge from data in biological psychiatry

2024· review· en· W4390589722 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas P. Quinn, Jonathan Hess, Victoria Marshe, Michelle Barnett, Anne-Christin Hauschild, Małgorzata Maciukiewicz, Samar S. M. Elsheikh, Xiaoyu Men, Emanuel Schwarz, Yannis Trakadis, Michael S. Breen, Eric J. Barnett, Yanli Zhang‐James, Mehmet Eren Ahsen, Han Cao, Junfang Chen, Jiahui Hou, Asif Salekin, Ping‐I Lin, Kristin K. Nicodemus, Andreas Meyer‐Lindenberg, Isabelle Bichindaritz, Stephen V. Faraone, Murray J. Cairns, Gaurav Pandey, Daniel J. Müller, Stephen J. Glatt

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Psychiatry · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Human Genome Research InstituteNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and DepressionEuropean CommissionNational Institute on AgingPatient-Centered Outcomes Research InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningSet (abstract data type)NeuropsychiatryComputer sciencePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations24
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueMolecular PsychiatrySame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207