ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024
A Perspective on Crowdsourcing and Human-in-the-Loop Workflows in Precision Health.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Abstention and Threshold Identification for Uncertainty Management in Clinical Decision Tools: A Case Study using Human-In-The-Loop Pediatric Autism Classifiers.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2026Article
- Multimodal LLM vs. Human-Measured Features for AI Predictions of Autism in Home Videos.Algorithms · 2025Article
- Article
- Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence in Intensive Care Medicine: Critical Recalibrations from Rule-Based Systems to Frontier Models.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The tumor immune microenvironment: implications for cancer immunotherapy, treatment strategies, and monitoring approaches.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Modern machine learning approaches have led to performant diagnostic models for a variety of health conditions. Several machine learning approaches, such as decision trees and deep neural networks, can, in principle, approximate any function. However, this power can be considered to be both a gift and a curse, as the propensity toward overfitting is magnified when the input data are heterogeneous and high dimensional and the output class is highly nonlinear. This issue can especially plague diagnostic systems that predict behavioral and psychiatric conditions that are diagnosed with subjective criteria. An emerging solution to this issue is crowdsourcing, where crowd workers are paid to annotate complex behavioral features in return for monetary compensation or a gamified experience. These labels can then be used to derive a diagnosis, either directly or by using the labels as inputs to a diagnostic machine learning model. This viewpoint describes existing work in this emerging field and discusses ongoing challenges and opportunities with crowd-powered diagnostic systems, a nascent field of study. With the correct considerations, the addition of crowdsourcing to human-in-the-loop machine learning workflows for the prediction of complex and nuanced health conditions can accelerate screening, diagnostics, and ultimately access to care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.