Bibliographic record
Abstract
The generative artificial intelligence (AI) model ChatGPT holds transformative prospects in medicine. The development of such models has signaled the beginning of a new era where complex biological data can be made more accessible and interpretable. ChatGPT is a natural language processing tool that can process, interpret, and summarize vast data sets. It can serve as a digital assistant for physicians and researchers, aiding in integrating medical imaging data with other multiomics data and facilitating the understanding of complex biological systems. The physician's and AI's viewpoints emphasize the value of such AI models in medicine, providing tangible examples of how this could enhance patient care. The editorial also discusses the rise of generative AI, highlighting its substantial impact in democratizing AI applications for modern medicine. While AI may not supersede health care professionals, practitioners incorporating AI into their practices could potentially have a competitive edge.
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 | 0.007 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".