MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404592907 · doi:10.62951/switch.v2i4.176

Penerapan Metode Case Based Reasoning untuk Mendiagnosa Penyakit Demensia

2024· article· en· W4404592907 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSwitch Jurnal Sains dan Teknologi Informasi · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEdcuational Technology Systems
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpert systemDementiaCase-based reasoningComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicinePathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dementia is a growing global health challenge due to the aging population and lifestyle changes. Early and accurate diagnosis is crucial but often difficult and costly. The Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) method in artificial intelligence offers a solution by mimicking human problem-solving based on past experiences. This study aims to develop and implement an efficient and reliable CBR-based dementia diagnosis system. The system is expected to analyze and compare patient symptoms and medical histories with documented cases to provide faster and more accurate diagnostic recommendations. The implementation of CBR in a web-based expert system using PHP and MySQL has proven effective, significantly contributing to the improvement of patient quality of life and healthcare system effectiveness.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.252 · 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