MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409264557 · doi:10.3233/shti250038

Detection of Temporal Clinical Events in Non-Temporal, Non-Annotated Data

2025· article· en· W4409264557 on OpenAlexaff
Dimitrios Zikos, Philip Eappen, R. Schmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)Bayesian probabilityComputer scienceConditional probabilityConfidence intervalData miningStatisticsPsychologyMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: This study developed and validated a Bayesian method which detects pairs of clinical events likely to be temporally ordered. METHODS: Association mining rules between medical procedures were extracted into a research-generated database and, for each pair of procedures A,B, the conditional probability P(A|B), its inverse, and the difference from its inverse (ConfDiff) were calculated. The study hypothesized that the higher the ConfDiff is, the more likely it is for A and B to be temporally ordered. The actual calendar date of each medical procedure served as ground truth. RESULTS: ConfDiff is the strongest predictor of %Tseq (r=0.278), followed by P(B|A) (r=0.129). This association continued to be present after controlling for the confidence, leverage and conviction metrics. CONCLUSION: Findings substantiate the assumption that, in a structured process-based domain (e.g., clinical care) if an attribute is strongly associated with another one, but not the other way around, this could imply temporality.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.376 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207