MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411299320 · doi:10.1093/labmed/lmaf013

Performance metrics for machine learning solutions in laboratory medicine

2025· review· en· W4411299320 on OpenAlex
Nicholas C. Spies, David P. Ng

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

VenueLaboratory Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImplementationComputer scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning-based solutions to laboratory medicine problems have become commonplace in literature, but real-world implementations remain rare, in no small part because of the substantial investment required to incorporate such solutions into routine clinical care. A crucial step in advancing a machine learning solution from proof of concept into clinical application is a robust and comprehensive evaluation of its performance. In this review, we discuss the common methods, best practices, and potential pitfalls in evaluating machine learning-based solutions to clinical laboratory problems.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.304 · 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