Introduction to the ASCO Quality Care Symposium
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The 2-day symposium was held November 30 and December 1, 2012, in San Diego, CA, and attracted over 660 attendees.In the pages of this issue are selected summations of the presentations from the invited speakers as well as distillations by the session chairs of the 15 abstracts selected for oral presentation.The 280 abstracts selected for poster presentations are available on the ASCO University Web site (http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/abstracts).The organizing committee selected abstracts for oral presentation on the basis of their perception of broad interest.Offerings included translational cancer health services research using large databases and population samples, as well as practical interventions that have improved quality in both large cancer care systems and small oncology practices.All of the selections were intended to promote the quality of cancer care for our patients and our colleagues, and were expected to stimulate additional quality improvement projects; research projects; and, above all, improve patient care.The idea for this meeting began during the year starting in June 2009, during which one of us (D.W.B.) served as ASCO President and another (C.C.E.) was Chair of ASCO's Quality Committee.The theme for that year was "Enhancing Quality through Innovation." 1 Three projects emerged from that year which were designed to improve the provision of quality care to patients with cancer.The first was recognizing and improving quality in real-life practice through the launch of the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Certification Program.The second project, a rapid learning system to systematize our learning from every patient we treat, has now become the ambitious project CancerLinq. 2 In the third project, ASCO's Board of Directors charged the organizers with developing "a scientific assembly that fosters high quality research interactions and discussion among all investigators involved in quality and outcomes science research as recognized complement to the ASCO Annual Meeting."The result was this Quality Symposium, which aimed to bring together health services researchers (the basic scientists of quality improvement), quality improvement professionals (the translational researchers of quality improvement), and the practitioners of quality improvement.Early on, we recognized that inclusion of the informed patient is critical to any successful quality improvement effort.We sought and obtained the collaboration of the National Coali-
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».