MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399772087 · doi:10.2196/60384

Authors’ Response to Peer Reviews of “Performance Drift in Machine Learning Models for Cardiac Surgery Risk Prediction: Retrospective Analysis”

2024· article· en· W4399772087 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tim Dong, Shubhra Sinha, Ben Zhai, Daniel Fudulu, Jeremy Chan, Pradeep Narayan, Andrew Judge, Massimo Caputo, Arnaldo Dimagli, Umberto Benedetto, Gianni D. Angelini

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIRx Med · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMachine learningMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

General CommentsOverall, I think this is a really interesting paper [2].It is a concept I had never heard of, and I can see very clearly how this is an important consideration.I also think the authors have done excellently to consider a host of different aspects, including feature importance change, beyond the most obvious measurements.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.347
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.347
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0130.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.046

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIRx MedSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207