A scoping review of asthma and machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the extent of machine learning (ML) application in asthma research and to identify research gaps while mapping the existing literature. Data Sources: We conducted a scoping review. PubMed, ProQuest, and Embase Scopus databases were searched with an end date of September 18, 2020. Study Selection: DistillerSR was used for data management. Inclusion criteria were an asthma focus, human participants, ML techniques, and written in English. Exclusion criteria were abstract only, simulation-based, not human based, or were reviews or commentaries. Descriptive statistics were presented. Results: A total of 6,317 potential articles were found. After removing duplicates, and reviewing the titles and abstracts, 102 articles were included for the full text analysis. Asthma episode prediction (24.5%), asthma phenotype classification (16.7%), and genetic profiling of asthma (12.7%) were the top three study topics. Cohort (52.9%), cross-sectional (20.6%), and case-control studies (11.8%) were the study designs most frequently used. Regarding the ML techniques, 34.3% of the studies used more than one technique. Neural networks, clustering, and random forests were the most common ML techniques used where they were used in 20.6%, 18.6%, and 17.6% of studies, respectively. Very few studies considered location of residence (i.e. urban or rural status). Conclusions: The use of ML in asthma studies has been increasing with most of this focused on the three major topics (>50%). Future research using ML could focus on gaps such as a broader range of study topics and focus on its use in additional populations (e.g. location of residence). Supplemental data for this article is available online at http://dx.doi.org/.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".