MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412225154

Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health: Guidance on large multi-modal models (LMMs)

2024· report· en· W4412225154 on OpenAlexaff
Rohit Malpani, Andreas Reis, Sameer Pujari, John Reeder, Effy Vayena, Alain Labrique, Jeremy Farrar, Partha P. Majumder, Timo Minssen, Najeeb Al-Shorbaji, M. Canales, Arisa Ema, Amel Ghoulia, Jennifer Gibson, Kenneth W. Goodman, Malavika Jayaram, Daudi Jjingo, Tze-Yun Leong, Alex John London, Thilidzi Marwala, Roli Mathur, Andrew M. Morris, Daniela Paolotti, Jerome Amir Singh, Jeroen van den Hoven, Robyn Whitney, Yi Zeng

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) · 2024
Typereport
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModalCorporate governanceArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMachine learningPsychologyPolitical scienceEconomicsManagementMaterials science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contributed to this WHO guidance as member of the "WHO Expert Group on Ethics and Governance of AI for Health". WHO is issuing this guidance to assist Member States in mapping the benefits and challenges associated with use of LMMs for health and in developing policies and practices for appropriate development, provision and use. The guidance includes recommendations for governance, within companies, by governments and through international collaboration, aligned with the guiding principles. The principles and recommendations, which account for the unique ways in which humans can use generative AI for health, are the basis of this guidance.

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)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0130.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.010

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 head0.655
GPT teacher head0.569
Teacher spread0.087 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen)→Same topicEthics in Clinical Research→French-language works237,207→