An intriguing vision for transatlantic collaborative health data use and artificial intelligence development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our traditional approach to diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment, can no longer process and transform the enormous volume of information into therapeutic success, innovative discovery, and health economic performance. Precision health, i.e., the right treatment, for the right person, at the right time in the right place, is enabled through a learning health system, in which medicine and multidisciplinary science, economic viability, diverse culture, and empowered patient's preferences are digitally integrated and conceptually aligned for continuous improvement and maintenance of health, wellbeing, and equity. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been successfully evaluated in risk stratification, accurate diagnosis, and treatment allocation, and to prevent health disparities. There is one caveat though: dependable AI models need to be trained on population-representative, large and deep data sets by multidisciplinary and multinational teams to avoid developer, statistical and social bias. Such applications and models can neither be created nor validated with data at the country, let alone institutional level and require a new dimension of collaboration, a cultural change with the establishment of trust in a precompetitive space. The Data for Health (#DFH23) conference in Berlin and the Follow-Up Workshop at Harvard University in Boston hosted a representative group of stakeholders in society, academia, industry, and government. With the momentum #DFH23 created, the European Health Data Space (EHDS) as a solid and safe foundation for consented collaborative health data use and the G7 Hiroshima AI process in place, we call on citizens and their governments to fully support digital transformation of medicine, research and innovation including AI.
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 | 0.110 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
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".