MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413638717 · doi:10.1101/2025.08.22.25334254

Predictive Performance Precision Analysis in Medicine: Identification of low-confidence predictions at patient and profile levels (MED3pa I)

2025· preprint· en· W4413638717 on OpenAlexafffund
Félix Camirand Lemyre, Jean‐François Éthier, lyna Hiba Chikouche, Ludmila Amriou, Dan Poenaru, Martin Vallières

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Children's HospitalMcGill University Health CentreUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersUniversité de SherbrookeNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsIdentification (biology)Confidence intervalPrecision medicineComputer scienceMedicineStatisticsInternal medicineMathematicsBiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Objective Artificial Intelligence models are increasingly used in healthcare, yet global performance metrics can mask variations in reliability across individual patients or subgroups with shared attributes, called patient profiles . This study introduces MED3pa, a method that identifies when models are less reliable, allowing clinicians to better assess model limitations. Materials and Methods We propose a framework that estimates predictive confidence using three combined approaches: Individualized (IPC), Aggregated (APC), and Mixed Predictive Confidence (MPC). IPC estimates confidence for each patient, APC assesses it across profiles, and MPC combines both. We evaluate our method on four datasets: one simulated, two public, and one private clinical dataset. Metrics by Declaration Rate (MDR) curves show how performance changes when retaining only the most confident predictions, while interpretable decision trees reveal profiles with higher or lower model confidence. Results We demonstrate our method in internal, temporal, and external validation settings, as well as through a clinical example. In internal validation, limiting predictions to the 93% most confident cases improved sensitivity by 14.3% and the AUC by 5.1%. In the clinical example, MED3pa identified a patient profile with high misclassification risk, demonstrating its potential for safer deployment. Discussion By identifying low-confidence predictions, our framework improves model reliability in clinical settings. It can be integrated into decision support systems to help clinicians make more informed decisions. Confidence thresholds help balance model performance with the proportion of patients for whom predictions are considered reliable. Conclusion Better leveraging confidence in model predictions could improve reliability and trustworthiness, supporting safer and more effective use in healthcare.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→