MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400524758 · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3426919

Enhancing ICU Management and Addressing Challenges in Türkiye Through AI-Powered Patient Classification and Increased Usability With ICU Placement Software

2024· article· en· W4400524758 on OpenAlexaff
Yiḡit Hakverdi, Ayhan Taştekın, Kadir İdin, Murat Kanğın, Tansel Özyer, Reda Alhajj

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityComputer scienceSoftwareSoftware engineeringHuman–computer interactionOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing demand for intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and the associated rising costs have urged the need for effective management strategies. In this research, we focus on the challenges faced by (1) hospitals in report generation and in their effort to properly allocate ICU patients, and (2) insurance organizations responsible for payments. We address the issues of misclassification and financial burden on hospitals and insurance organizations that arise from inefficient and subjective application of regulations while also considering the impact on medical personnel. Through existing literature analysis, as well as extensive discussions with critical care professionals and insights gained from university hospitals, we identified the need for a supportive machine learning model for ICU level classification of patients, and furthermore, we propose an easily deployable and highly interoperability software system specifically for placement of patients in various ICU levels. We aim to support healthcare professionals in their decision-making process with the supportive machine learning model and the software system that we named "heartbeat". This research aims to bridge the gap between hospitals and insurance institutions to ensure fair and objective patient classification and to improve the overall ICU management. The process has been tested using MIMIC-III version 1.4 dataset as a proof of concept to demonstrate the applicability and effectiveness of the developed system. Further testing using real data after official deployment and usage by various stakeholders.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207