MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398223400 · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000515

Outlier analysis for accelerating clinical discovery: An augmented intelligence framework and a systematic review

2024· review· en· W4398223400 on OpenAlexaff
Ghayath Janoudi, Mara Uzun, Deshayne B. Fell, Joel G. Ray, Angel M. Foster, Randy Giffen, Tammy Clifford, Mark Walker

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Digital Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsGovernment of CanadaChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioIBM (Canada)University of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutlierComputer scienceData scienceAnomaly detectionIdentification (biology)Artificial intelligenceField (mathematics)PopulationData miningMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical discoveries largely depend on dedicated clinicians and scientists to identify and pursue unique and unusual clinical encounters with patients and communicate these through case reports and case series. This process has remained essentially unchanged throughout the history of modern medicine. However, these traditional methods are inefficient, especially considering the modern-day availability of health-related data and the sophistication of computer processing. Outlier analysis has been used in various fields to uncover unique observations, including fraud detection in finance and quality control in manufacturing. We propose that clinical discovery can be formulated as an outlier problem within an augmented intelligence framework to be implemented on any health-related data. Such an augmented intelligence approach would accelerate the identification and pursuit of clinical discoveries, advancing our medical knowledge and uncovering new therapies and management approaches. We define clinical discoveries as contextual outliers measured through an information-based approach and with a novelty-based root cause. Our augmented intelligence framework has five steps: define a patient population with a desired clinical outcome, build a predictive model, identify outliers through appropriate measures, investigate outliers through domain content experts, and generate scientific hypotheses. Recognizing that the field of obstetrics can particularly benefit from this approach, as it is traditionally neglected in commercial research, we conducted a systematic review to explore how outlier analysis is implemented in obstetric research. We identified two obstetrics-related studies that assessed outliers at an aggregate level for purposes outside of clinical discovery. Our findings indicate that using outlier analysis in clinical research in obstetrics and clinical research, in general, requires further development.

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 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)0.082
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.256
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0820.256
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.009
Bibliometrics0.0400.029
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.452
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.094 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
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

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLOS Digital HealthSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207