Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Contextual Phenotyping of Pediatric Sepsis Cohort Using Large Language Models

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Serializing patient records into text and embedding them with large language models yields better-separated, clinically coherent sepsis clusters than classical mixed-data clustering.

desk verdict A clean benchmark of LLM-embedding clustering with an unsupported clinical phenotyping claim because it runs on synthetic data and evaluates clusters with the same embeddings that made them. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09805 v1 pith:ZO3FT4KE submitted 2025-05-14 q-bio.QM cs.AIcs.CLcs.LGstat.AP

Aditya Nagori , Ayush Gautam , Matthew O. Wiens , Vuong Nguyen , Nathan Kenya Mugisha , Jerome Kabakyenga , Niranjan Kissoon , John Mark Ansermino
show 1 more author
Rishikesan Kamaleswaran
This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.QMcs.AIcs.CLcs.LGstat.AP
keywords LLMembeddingspatientphenotypingpediatricsepsismixed-typeEHRclusteringsilhouettescoresyntheticdataresource-limitedsettings
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that turning mixed-type electronic health records into text and embedding them with large language models produces patient clusters that are better separated and clinically more coherent than clusters from classical dimensionality-reduction-plus-k-medoids pipelines. On a synthetic pediatric sepsis cohort modeled on Ugandan admissions, the best LLM embedding reached a silhouette score of 0.86, and the Llama-based pipeline with an appended clustering objective identified five subgroups with distinct nutritional, clinical, and socioeconomic profiles. The authors argue this makes LLM-based contextual phenotyping a viable route for resource-limited settings where data are heterogeneous and expert annotation is scarce.

What carries the argument

The machine that carries the argument is a serialization-plus-embedding pipeline: each row of the 147-variable matrix is written out as text, an optional sentence instructing the model to 'generate an embedding for clustering patients based on their physiological severity' is appended, and a transformer encoder turns the text into a dense vector. K-means then clusters those vectors. The load-bearing step is the appended clustering objective, which shifts the embedding so that clinically critical features dominate the geometry; without it, the best model's silhouette degrades at higher cluster counts. The classical rivals use k-medoids on UMAP and FAMD reductions of the raw mixed-type matrix, so the comparison isolates what contextual language understanding adds to the usual tabular pipeline.

What would settle it

Run the identical serialization-embedding-k-means pipeline on the real prospective Uganda sepsis cohort and compare the five clusters' mortality, nutritional, and socioeconomic profiles; if the cluster count, composition, or profile differences do not recur, the paper's central claim fails as a statement about real patients.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that when each patient's mixed-type record—demographics, vitals, labs, symptoms, medications, and socioeconomic variables—is flattened into a sentence and passed through an LLM, the resulting embedding space supports k-means clusters that separate clinically meaningful subgroups more cleanly than k-medoids on UMAP or FAMD embeddings of the same data. The authors report a silhouette score of 0.86 for the best embedding model at two clusters, and a five-cluster solution from the Llama model that is statistically distinct on age, growth z-scores, vital signs, vaccination, malaria status, maternal education, and in-hospital mortality. The clusters align with recognizable pediatric sepsis profiles: stable patients on standard antibiotics, young patients with severe respiratory distress and the highest mortality, older patients with high malaria burden, severely malnourished youngest children, and a moderate group with renal and HIV-related signals. The paper presents this as evidence that contextual text embeddings, steered by an explicit clustering objective, are a workable alternative to classical mixed-data clustering in a low-income-country setting.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the synthetic dataset generated from the Ugandan cohort by a classification-tree method preserves the true multivariate clinical relationships; if the generator only reproduces marginal distributions and simple interactions, the clusters could be artifacts of synthesis rather than real sepsis phenotypes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For mixed-type EHR tables, LLM serialization removes the need to hand-pick distance metrics or separate numeric and categorical preprocessing; one text encoder can produce a single clustering-ready space.
  • Appending a clustering objective is a low-cost steering mechanism: it improves silhouette scores at higher cluster counts, which is where classical methods deteriorate.
  • The five recovered phenotypes imply different care bundles: high-mortality younger children, malaria-dominant older children, severely malnourished children with maternal-education gaps, stable children on standard antibiotics, and a moderate group with possible renal or HIV concerns.
  • Because the pipeline relies on quantized open models and text serialization, it can be rerun in resource-limited settings without high-end hardware or a labeled training set.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An extension the paper leaves implicit is that its strongest result would become a statement about real patients only if the same five clusters appear on the true Uganda cohort; the paper itself stops at the synthetic copy, so that validation is the natural next step.
  • Variable order in the serialized text is a hidden design choice; permuting column order would show whether the embeddings are capturing clinical semantics or positional artifacts of the prompt.
  • The same serialization-and-objective trick could be redirected from descriptive phenotyping to predictive tasks—for example, replacing the clustering objective with a mortality-severity instruction—without changing the pipeline architecture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a pipeline for clustering pediatric sepsis patients by serializing each record into text, embedding it with one of three language models (Llama-3.1-8B, DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B, Stella-En-400M-V5), optionally appending a clustering objective, and applying K-means to the embeddings. The authors compare these LLM-based clusters with K-Medoids on UMAP and FAMD embeddings using silhouette scores, then characterize five clusters from the Llama-3.1-8B embeddings with Kruskal-Wallis and chi-square tests. They conclude that LLM-based methods outperform classical techniques and reveal clinically distinct phenotypes. The dataset, however, is synthetic, generated with synthpop CART from a real Ugandan cohort, and the evaluation is based entirely on this synthetic sample.

Significance. If the central claims were supported, the pipeline would be a useful contribution to mixed-type EHR clustering in resource-limited settings: it uses open-weight models, attempts a systematic comparison with classical pipelines, and discloses in the methods that the data are synthetic. The paper also shows a plausible mechanism for injecting a clustering objective into text serialization. However, as presented, the clinical phenotyping claim is not established. The clusters are derived and evaluated entirely within a synthetic dataset, and the evaluation metrics do not arbitrate clinical utility against classical alternatives. The paper is best viewed as a methodological proof-of-concept, but its current evidence does not support the stated conclusion that LLM-based methods 'outperformed' classical techniques for contextual phenotyping.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1 and Abstract] The dataset is synthetic, generated by synthpop CART from a real Ugandan cohort, but the abstract calls it 'a pediatric sepsis dataset from a low-income country' and Section 4 interprets the clusters as describing real Ugandan children. No fidelity analysis of the synthetic data is provided. CART-based sequential synthesis preserves marginal distributions and some tree-split interactions but can also imprint its own structure, such as artificial similarity among records from the same terminal nodes. The statistical tests in Section 3.0.2 are computed on the same synthetic sample, so they do not establish anything about real patients. Please either validate the synthetic data (for example, by comparing marginal and joint distributions with the real cohort, or replicating the analysis on the real cohort) or reframe the paper as a proof-of-concept on synthetic data.
  2. [Section 3.0.1] The superiority claim is built on silhouette scores computed on the same embedding spaces that the clustering algorithm was applied to. Silhouette values are not comparable across different embedding spaces: a higher silhouette on an LLM embedding does not imply better or more clinically useful clusters than a lower silhouette on a UMAP or FAMD embedding. A valid comparison would need an external benchmark, such as prediction of a held-out outcome (for example, mortality, length of stay, or treatment escalation), or at least stability and cluster-quality metrics computed on a common validation representation.
  3. [Section 3.0.2 and Table 1] The statistical tests compare clusters on variables that were all included in the serialized text and therefore contributed to the embeddings; significant differences are largely expected and do not validate the phenotype labels as clinically meaningful. In addition, p-values are printed as exactly 0, which is not a meaningful report for a Kruskal-Wallis or chi-square test; cluster sizes are not reported; and no adjustment is made for the fact that the number of clusters was chosen post hoc from the same data. Please report bounded p-values, effect sizes, cluster sizes, and an external validation outcome.
  4. [Sections 2.4 and 4] The LoRA fine-tuning procedure is under-specified. The Methods mention 'with a LoRA adapter,' and Section 4 states that 'LoRA was used to fine-tune the model efficiently on our dataset,' but no fine-tuning data, labels, loss function, training epochs, or hyperparameters are provided. Section 2.5 only describes appending an objective string to the input, which is not fine-tuning. This ambiguity makes the embeddings irreproducible and the comparison ill-defined. Please specify the fine-tuning setup or state explicitly that no supervised fine-tuning was performed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Title] The phrase 'pediatric sepsis dataset' should be qualified as synthetic, at least in the abstract and possibly the title, because the current phrasing implies real patient data and conflicts with the synthetic-data disclosure in Section 2.1.
  2. [Section 2.3] The serialization format is not fully described; 'concatenate(x_i1,x_i2,...,x_im)' lacks delimiters, value formatting, and an example, which is essential for reproducibility of the embeddings.
  3. [Figure 2 and Section 3.0.1] The silhouette-score comparison across different numbers of clusters uses point estimates only; no confidence intervals or repeated runs with different random seeds are reported for K-means, so the stability of the comparison is unknown.
  4. [Section 4] The Discussion contains a typo ('the these model were chosen') and does not justify why five clusters were selected for clinical interpretation when Stella achieves its highest silhouette score at two clusters; the choice of k should be explicitly motivated.
  5. [Figure 1] The text in Section 3.0.1 refers to 'Fig. 1c' twice for different models, and the caption panel labels should be checked against the in-text references to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

LLM phenotyping claims are partly self-fulfilling: the severity-directed clustering prompt and inclusion of outcome variables in the serialized features force the cluster differences reported as discoveries.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.5 (clustering objective) and Section 3.0.2 (cluster descriptions)]
    "To prioritize critical features for clustering, we appended the clustering objective to each serialized patient record. The clustering objective was: "Generate an embedding for clustering patients based on their physiological severity and prioritize features indicative of critical conditions." ... Cluster 1 ... has the highest in-hospital mortality rate at 6.56% (p-value = 0.001). Clinical symptoms such as severe respiratory distress are significantly more prevalent (24.29%, p-value = 0), and there is a higher incidence of coma (4.96%, p-value = 0)."

    The embeddings are generated with an appended instruction O to cluster by physiological severity, and k-means is applied to e'_i = f(serialize(x_i), O). The cluster labels are therefore a function of O. Reporting that the resulting clusters differ by severity, respiratory distress, coma, and mortality is a restatement of the input objective, not an independent phenotypic discovery. The subsequent statistical tests are run on the same serialized records used to build the clusters, so they measure within-sample separation rather than external clinical validity.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.1, Section 2.3, and Section 3.0.2]
    "The dataset included demographics, vital signs, lab values, symptoms, comorbidities, medications, socio-environmental factors, and outcomes such as mortality and length of stay. ... s_i = serialize(x_i) = concatenate(x_i1,x_i2,...,x_im). ... Cluster 1 ... has the highest in-hospital mortality rate at 6.56% (p-value = 0.001)."

    If mortality is one of the m features in x_i, as the dataset description states, then serialization places it into s_i, and the embedding and cluster assignment are deterministic functions of x_i, including mortality. The observed mortality difference between clusters is therefore forced by the clustering construction, not an independent validation. Presenting this as evidence of a clinically meaningful high-risk phenotype treats an input feature as if it were an external outcome.

full rationale

The paper has no equation-level circularity in the strict sense: the LLM-vs-classical comparison is based on silhouette scores computed in each method's own embedding space, and those scores are not derived from the same fitted parameters as the competing methods. There is also no load-bearing self-citation chain or uniqueness argument imported from prior work by the same authors. However, the phenotyping claims are partially circular. First, the authors explicitly instruct the LLM to embed patients by physiological severity and to prioritize critical features; the clusters are then described in exactly those terms, so the reported clinical separation is authored by the prompt. Second, the synthetic dataset includes outcomes such as mortality among the serialized variables, and the cluster characterization highlights mortality differences; because the clusters are functions of the full serialized record, those differences are by construction rather than external evidence. The additional concern that the analysis is performed entirely on synthpop CART-generated synthetic data is a serious external-validity problem, but it is not itself circularity: the synthetic generator is an external data source, not a theorem cited to prove the paper's claim. Overall, the central benchmark comparison retains some independent content, but the 'contextual phenotyping' conclusions reduce in part to the objectives and variables supplied as inputs, warranting a partial-circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or physical/mathematical constructs. Its main assumptions are that synthetic data preserve real cohort structure, that serialized-text LLM embeddings capture clinical similarity, and that silhouette is an adequate arbiter of phenotyping quality. The free parameters are the cluster count and several under-reported baseline and fine-tuning hyperparameters.

free parameters (4)
  • Number of clusters k = 5 for reported phenotypes (swept 2 to 9)
    Cluster count is chosen based on silhouette score computed on the data; the detailed phenotypes are presented for k=5, which is data-dependent selection.
  • UMAP hyperparameters = not reported
    n_neighbors, min_dist and metric choices for numeric and categorical embeddings are not specified, yet they shape the classical baseline.
  • FAMD component count = not reported
    The number of retained components for Factor Analysis of Mixed Data is not given; this affects the K-Medoids baseline.
  • LoRA fine-tuning configuration = not reported
    The paper mentions LoRA adaptation for DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B but does not describe training data, rank, alpha, or steps, so this is an uncontrolled modelling choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The synthetic dataset from synthpop CART preserves the clinically relevant multivariate relationships of the real Ugandan cohort.
    The entire analysis and phenotyping claims are made on synthetic records (Section 2.1), so if the synthesis loses interaction structure, the clusters are not evidence about real patients.
  • domain assumption LLM embeddings of serialized text preserve and prioritize the clinical features relevant to sepsis phenotypes.
    The method assumes that turning numeric and categorical variables into sentences and embedding them yields a representation where cluster distances map to clinical similarity (Section 2.4).
  • domain assumption Silhouette score on the embedding space is a valid measure of phenotyping quality.
    The paper uses silhouette as the primary metric to declare LLM superiority (Section 3.0.1), yet silhouette only measures geometric compactness in the chosen embedding space.
  • domain assumption Using the same variables that were clustered to test cluster differences provides evidence of distinct phenotypes.
    The statistical tests in Section 3.0.2 compare clusters on variables that were fed into the serialization and clustering, so significant p-values are expected even if clusters are arbitrary.
  • standard math K-means and K-Medoids assumptions (Euclidean geometry, cluster convexity) hold for the embedding spaces.
    Standard clustering algorithms are applied without checking whether the embedding manifolds satisfy their geometric assumptions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Contextual Phenotyping of Pediatric Sepsis Cohort Using Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZO3FT4KE

@misc{pith2026250509805,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Contextual Phenotyping of Pediatric Sepsis Cohort Using Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZO3FT4KE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09805}
}
read the original abstract

Clustering patient subgroups is essential for personalized care and efficient resource use. Traditional clustering methods struggle with high-dimensional, heterogeneous healthcare data and lack contextual understanding. This study evaluates Large Language Model (LLM) based clustering against classical methods using a pediatric sepsis dataset from a low-income country (LIC), containing 2,686 records with 28 numerical and 119 categorical variables. Patient records were serialized into text with and without a clustering objective. Embeddings were generated using quantized LLAMA 3.1 8B, DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B with low-rank adaptation(LoRA), and Stella-En-400M-V5 models. K-means clustering was applied to these embeddings. Classical comparisons included K-Medoids clustering on UMAP and FAMD-reduced mixed data. Silhouette scores and statistical tests evaluated cluster quality and distinctiveness. Stella-En-400M-V5 achieved the highest Silhouette Score (0.86). LLAMA 3.1 8B with the clustering objective performed better with higher number of clusters, identifying subgroups with distinct nutritional, clinical, and socioeconomic profiles. LLM-based methods outperformed classical techniques by capturing richer context and prioritizing key features. These results highlight potential of LLMs for contextual phenotyping and informed decision-making in resource-limited settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09805 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Clustering Performance Metrics Across Different Models Fig 1a). Clusters on Llama 3.1 8b model embed￾dings with objectives inserted in the serialized data. Fig 1b). Clusters on Llama 3.1 8b model embeddings. Fig 1c). Clusters on Stella model embeddings with objectives inserted in the serialized data. Fig 1d). Clusters on Stella model embeddings. Fig 1e). Clusters on DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8b model embeddings with… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A new initiative on precision medicine

    Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. New England Journal of Medicine. 2015;372(9):793-5

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Towards precision medicine

    Ashley EA. Towards precision medicine. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2016;17(9):507-22

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Machine learning applications in cancer prognosis and prediction

    Kourou K, Exarchos TP, Exarchos KP, Karamouzis MV , Fotiadis DI. Machine learning applications in cancer prognosis and prediction. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal. 2015;13:8-17

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    The coming age of data-driven medicine: translational bioinformatics’ next frontier

    Shah NH, Tenenbaum JD. The coming age of data-driven medicine: translational bioinformatics’ next frontier. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2012 Jun;19(e1):e2-4

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Clinical information extraction applica- tions: A literature review

    Wang Y , Wang L, Rastegar-Mojarad M, Moon S, Shen F, Afzal N, et al. Clinical information extraction applica- tions: A literature review. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2018 Jan;77:34-49

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Similarity measures for categorical data: A comparative evaluation

    Boriah S, Chandola V , Kumar V . Similarity measures for categorical data: A comparative evaluation. In: Pro- ceedings of the 8th SIAM International Conference on Data Mining. SIAM; 2008. p. 243-54

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    A k-mean clustering algorithm for mixed numeric and categorical data

    Ahmad A, Dey L. A k-mean clustering algorithm for mixed numeric and categorical data. Data & Knowledge Engineering. 2007 Nov;63(2):503-27

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Adaptive Control Processes: A Guided Tour

    Bellman R. Adaptive Control Processes: A Guided Tour. Princeton Legacy Library. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1961

    work page 1961

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    On the surprising behavior of distance metrics in high dimensional space

    Aggarwal CC, Hinneburg A, Keim DA. On the surprising behavior of distance metrics in high dimensional space. In: Database Theory — ICDT 2001. vol. 1973 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer; 2001. p. 420-34

    2001

  2. [10]

    MapReduce: simplified data processing on large clusters

    Dean J, Ghemawat S. MapReduce: simplified data processing on large clusters. Communications of the ACM. 2008 Jan;51(1):107-13

    2008

  3. [11]

    Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning

    Doshi-Velez F, Kim B. Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:170208608. 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    Brown TB, Mann B, Ryder N, Subbiah M, Kaplan J, Dhariwal P, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. vol. 33; 2020. p. 1877-901

    2020

  5. [13]

    BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding

    Devlin J, Chang MW, Lee K, Toutanova K. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. In: Proceedings of NAACL-HLT (1); 2019. p. 4171-86

    2019

  6. [14]

    A Transformer-Based Framework for Multivariate Time Series Representation Learning

    Zerveas G, Jayaraman S, Patel D, Bhamidipaty A, Eickhoff C. A Transformer-Based Framework for Multivariate Time Series Representation Learning. In: Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (KDD ’21). KDD ’21; 2021. p. 2114-24

    2021

  7. [15]

    Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space

    Mikolov T, Chen K, Corrado G, Dean J. Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space. In: 1st International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) Workshop Track; 2013

    2013

  8. [16]

    Attention Is All You Need

    Vaswani A, Shazeer N, Parmar N, Uszkoreit J, Jones L, Gomez AN, et al. Attention Is All You Need. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS ’17). vol. 30; 2017. p. 5998-6008

    2017

  9. [17]

    ”Why Should I Trust You?”: Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier

    Ribeiro MT, Singh S, Guestrin C. ”Why Should I Trust You?”: Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD ’16); 2016. p. 1135-44

    2016

  10. [18]

    A Guide to Deep Learning in Healthcare

    Esteva A, Robicquet A, Ramsundar B, Kuleshov V , DePristo M, Chou K, et al. A Guide to Deep Learning in Healthcare. Nature Medicine. 2019;25(1):24-9

    2019

  11. [19]

    The 2024 Pediatric Sepsis Chal- lenge: Predicting In-Hospital Mortality in Children With Suspected Sepsis in Uganda

    Huxford C, Rafiei A, Nguyen V , Wiens MO, Ansermino JM, Kissoon N, et al. The 2024 Pediatric Sepsis Chal- lenge: Predicting In-Hospital Mortality in Children With Suspected Sepsis in Uganda. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine. 2024 Nov;25(11):1047-50. Epub ahead of print June 21, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Mortality after hospital dis- charge among children younger than 5 years admitted with suspected sepsis in Uganda: a prospective, multisite, observational cohort study

    Wiens MO, Bone JN, Kumbakumba E, Businge S, Tagoola A, Sherine SO, et al. Mortality after hospital dis- charge among children younger than 5 years admitted with suspected sepsis in Uganda: a prospective, multisite, observational cohort study. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Heal...

    2023

  13. [21]

    synthpop: Bespoke Creation of Synthetic Data in R

    Nowok B, Raab GM, Dibben C. synthpop: Bespoke Creation of Synthetic Data in R. Journal of Statistical Software. 2016 Oct;74(11):1-26

    2016

  14. [22]

    LLaMA 3.1: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models; 2024

    Touvron H, Lavril T, Izacard G, Martinet X, Lachaux MA, Lacroix T, et al.. LLaMA 3.1: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models; 2024. Accessed: 2024-11-28. https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama

    2024

  15. [23]

    Published: 3 months ago

    deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B – Hugging Face;. Published: 3 months ago. https://huggingface.co/ deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B

  16. [24]

    DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Ca- pability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning

    DeepSeek-AI, Guo D, Yang D, Zhang H, Song J, Zhang R, et al. DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Ca- pability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:250112948. 2025 Jan. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.12948

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models

    Hu EJ, Shen Y , Wallis P, Allen-Zhu Z, Li Y , Wang S, et al. LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:210609685. 2021 Jun

    2021

  18. [26]

    UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduc- tion

    McInnes L, Healy J, Melville J. UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduc- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:180203426. 2018 Feb

    2018

  19. [27]

    Prince: Multivariate Exploratory Data Analysis in Python—PCA, CA, MCA, MFA, FAMD, GPA

    Halford M. Prince: Multivariate Exploratory Data Analysis in Python—PCA, CA, MCA, MFA, FAMD, GPA

  20. [28]

    Multiple Factor Analysis by Example Using R

    Pag `es J. Multiple Factor Analysis by Example Using R. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2014

    2014

  21. [29]

    Use of Ranks in One-Criterion Variance Analysis

    Kruskal WH, Wallis W A. Use of Ranks in One-Criterion Variance Analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1952 Dec;47(260):583-621. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1952.10483441

    1952

  22. [30]

    A Comprehensive Overview of Large Language Models; 2024

    Naveed H, Khan AU, et al.. A Comprehensive Overview of Large Language Models; 2024. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.06435. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.06435

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A Density-Based Algorithm for Discovering Clusters in Large Spatial Databases with Noise

    Ester M, Kriegel HP, Sander J, Xu X. A Density-Based Algorithm for Discovering Clusters in Large Spatial Databases with Noise. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD ’96). 1996:226-31

    1996

  24. [32]

    Deep Learning

    LeCun Y , Bengio Y , Hinton G. Deep Learning. Nature. 2015 May;521(7553):436-44. Available from: https: //doi.org/10.1038/nature14539

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    Large Language Model Prompting Techniques for Advancement in Clinical Medicine

    Shah K, Xu AY , Sharma Y , Daher M, McDonald C, Diebo BG, et al. Large Language Model Prompting Techniques for Advancement in Clinical Medicine. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024 Aug;13(17):5101

    2024

  26. [34]

    mGTE: Generalized Long-Context Text Representation and Reranking Models for Multilingual Text Retrieval; 2024

    Zhang X, Zhang Y , Long D, Xie W, Dai Z, Tang J, et al.. mGTE: Generalized Long-Context Text Representation and Reranking Models for Multilingual Text Retrieval; 2024. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.19669. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.19669

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Maternal and Child Undernutrition and Overweight in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries

    Black RE, Victora CG, Walker SP, Bhutta ZA, Christian P, de Onis M, et al. Maternal and Child Undernutrition and Overweight in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries. The Lancet. 2013 Aug;382(9890):427-51. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60937-X

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    The Effects of Malnutrition on Child Mortality in Developing Countries

    Pelletier DL, Frongillo EA. The Effects of Malnutrition on Child Mortality in Developing Countries. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 1995;73(4):443-8

    1995

  29. [37]

    World Malaria Report 2020

    World Health Organization. World Malaria Report 2020. World Health Organization. 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/teams/global-malaria-programme/reports/world-malaria-report-2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Education as a Factor in Mortality Decline: An Examination of Nigerian Data

    Caldwell JC. Education as a Factor in Mortality Decline: An Examination of Nigerian Data. Population Studies. 1979 Nov;33(3):395-413. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/0032472031000143635

    1979 doi

  31. [39]

    Maternal Education and Child Survival in Developing Countries: The Search for Pathways of Influence

    Cleland JG, Van Ginneken J. Maternal Education and Child Survival in Developing Countries: The Search for Pathways of Influence. Social Science & Medicine. 1988 Dec;27(12):1357-68. Available from: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0277-9536(88)90253-0

    1988 doi

  32. [40]

    Maternal and Child Undernutrition: Consequences for Adult Health and Human Capital

    Victora CG, Adair L, Fall C, Hallal PC, Martorell R, Richter L, et al. Maternal and Child Undernutrition: Consequences for Adult Health and Human Capital. The Lancet. 2008 Jan;371(9609):340-57. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61692-4

    2008 doi

  33. [41]

    Decline in Mortality, AIDS, and Hospital Admissions in Perinatally HIV-1 Infected Children in the United Kingdom and Ireland

    Gibb DM, Duong T, Tookey PA, Sharland M, Tudor-Williams G, Lyall H, et al. Decline in Mortality, AIDS, and Hospital Admissions in Perinatally HIV-1 Infected Children in the United Kingdom and Ireland. BMJ. 2003 Oct;327(7422):1019. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.32...

    2003

  34. [42]

    Bridging the Implementation Gap Between Knowledge and Action for Health

    Haines A, Kuruvilla S. Bridging the Implementation Gap Between Knowledge and Action for Health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2004;82:724-31

    2004

  35. [43]

    Maternal Education and Child Nutritional Status in Bolivia: Finding the Links

    Frost MB, Forste R. Maternal Education and Child Nutritional Status in Bolivia: Finding the Links. Social Science & Medicine. 2005;60(2):395-407

    2005

  36. [2024]

    https://github.com/MaxHalford/prince

    MIT License; original release 2016-10-22. https://github.com/MaxHalford/prince

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.