MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411088319 · doi:10.1145/3713081.3731748

Best practice for supply chain in LLM-assisted medical applications

2025· article· en· W4411088319 on OpenAlexaff
Shengming Zhao, Jiawei Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicQuality and Safety in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupply chainComputer scienceBest practiceBusinessManagementMarketingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The application of large language models in medical applications is crucial for enhancing diagnostic accuracy, improving patient communication, and boosting healthcare efficiency. Their ability to process vast amounts of data, generate concise information, and automate tasks positions LLM applications as transformative tools. Recent studies and real-world examples underscore the importance of delivering secure and responsible LLM-assisted applications. In this manuscript, we outline our intention of uncovering best software practices in the supply chain of LLM medical 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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0200.016
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.009

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.442 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicQuality and Safety in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207