MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413681749 · doi:10.1016/j.landig.2025.100910

How CHART (Chatbot Assessment Reporting Tool) can help to advance clinical artificial intelligence research through clearer task definition and robust validation

2025· article· en· W4413681749 on OpenAlexaff
Arun James Thirunavukarasu, Ernest Lim, Bright Huo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Digital Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChatbotTask (project management)ChartComputer scienceData scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineeringSystems engineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) shows remarkable abilities to provide accurate and relevant responses to queries in specialist domains such as clinical medicine. The advancement in generative AI tools has led to excitement and concern regarding their potential to augment health care by improving the efficiency and performance of clinicians.1 Although initial interest was generated through contrived tasks such as answering examination questions, several studies have evaluated generative AI in the context of more realistic clinical 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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.630
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.049 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Digital HealthSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207