MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409292664 · doi:10.22214/ijraset.2025.68480

The Potential of Biomedical Text Analysis in Healthcare

2025· article· en· W4409292664 on OpenAlexaff
Sakshi Dubey

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiverse Approaches in Healthcare and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth carePsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biomedical text mining plays a crucial role in modern healthcare by extracting valuable insights from vast amounts of medical literature and patient data. With the increasing volume of unstructured medical information, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have become essential tools for automating diagnosis explanations, treatment recommendations, and drug information retrieval. Traditional AI chatbots have been employed to generate medical report summaries and provide drug-related details, but they often suffer from issues related to accuracy, interpretability, and user trust. This research explores the transition from AI-integrated chatbots to a pre-trained ML model based on BioBERT, a high-accuracy model for medical diagnosis and treatment recommendations. The study highlights the challenges faced in processing medical text, including contextual understanding, data privacy concerns, and regulatory compliance. By leveraging BioBERT, the proposed system improves diagnostic accuracy and enhances the interpretability of medical recommendations while reducing the limitations associated with AI chatbots. Our methodology involves integrating BioBERT into a web-based healthcare application that allows users to manage health records, access diagnostic insights, and track system performance through analytics. The study demonstrates that the ML-based approach significantly enhances decision-making efficiency, providing more reliable and explainable medical recommendations. The findings contribute to the advancement of AI-driven medical support systems, paving the way for more accurate and user-friendly healthcare applications.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.388 · 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
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 venueInternational Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering TechnologySame topicDiverse Approaches in Healthcare and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207