MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402733176 · doi:10.7326/annals-24-00363

Artificial Intelligence–Supported Development of Health Guideline Questions

2024· article· en· W4402733176 on OpenAlexaff
Bernardo Sousa‐Pinto, Rafael José Vieira, Manuel Marques‐Cruz, Antonio Bognanni, Sara Gil‐Mata, Slava Mikhaylov, Joana Amaro, Liliane Pinheiro, Marta Mota, Mattia Giovannini, Leticia de las Vecillas, Ana Margarida Pereira, Justyna Lityńska, Bolesław Samoliński, Jonathan A. Bernstein, Mark S. Dykewicz, Martin Hofmann‐Apitius, Marc Jacobs, Nikolaos G. Papadopoulos, Siân Williams, Torsten Zuberbier, João Fonseca, Ricardo Cruz‐Correia, Jean Bousquet, Holger J. Schünemann

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsHamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine ProgramMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Guideline questions are typically proposed by experts. OBJECTIVE: To assess how large language models (LLMs) can support the development of guideline questions, providing insights on approaches and lessons learned. DESIGN: Two approaches for guideline question generation were assessed: 1) identification of questions conveyed by online search queries and 2) direct generation of guideline questions by LLMs. For the former, the researchers retrieved popular queries on allergic rhinitis using Google Trends (GT) and identified those conveying questions using both manual and LLM-based methods. They then manually structured as guideline questions the queries that conveyed relevant questions. For the second approach, they tasked an LLM with proposing guideline questions, assuming the role of either a patient or a clinician. SETTING: Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) 2024 guidelines. PARTICIPANTS: None. MEASUREMENTS: Frequency of relevant questions generated. RESULTS: The authors retrieved 3975 unique queries using GT. From these, they identified 37 questions, of which 22 had not been previously posed by guideline panel members and 2 were eventually prioritized by the panel. Direct interactions with LLMs resulted in the generation of 22 unique relevant questions (11 not previously suggested by panel members), and 4 were eventually prioritized by the panel. In total, 6 of 39 final questions prioritized for the 2024 ARIA guidelines were not initially thought of by the panel. The researchers provide a set of practical insights on the implementation of their approaches based on the lessons learned. LIMITATION: Single case study (ARIA guidelines). CONCLUSION: Approaches using LLMs can support the development of guideline questions, complementing traditional methods and potentially augmenting questions prioritized by guideline panels. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Fraunhofer Cluster of Excellence for Immune-Mediated Diseases.

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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.185
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.185
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.406
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.138 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations19
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Internal MedicineSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207