MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401384500 · doi:10.1002/cbl.30812

AI be used in medicine? Not in MI, SUDs, CPDD panelists suggest

2024· article· en· W4401384500 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alison Knopf

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Brown University Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)PsychologyPsychiatryMedicineLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While artificial intelligence (AI) may have utility in some medical practices such as reading X‐rays, it is not going to be useful in diagnosing or treating conditions with nuances — notably, substance use disorders (SUDs) or mental illness — experts suggested in a panel on the topic at the June College on Problems of Drug Dependence (CPDD) annual conference in Montreal.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.018
Scholarly communication0.0100.015
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0400.053
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.007

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.246 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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 venueThe Brown University Child and Adolescent Behavior LetterSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207