MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2274848912 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2016.00014

Issues to Consider Before Initiating a Project in Medical Geography

2016· article· en· W2274848912 sur OpenAlexaff
Jillian Hurd, Oliver Hurley, Shabnam Asghari

Notice bibliographique

RevueFrontiers in Public Health · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueHealth disparities and outcomes
Établissements canadiensMemorial University of Newfoundland
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPublic healthEpidemiologyFront (military)Data scienceSpatial epidemiologyPublic opinionGeographyMedicinePolitical scienceComputer sciencePoliticsPathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This article is directed toward health professionals who have a limited background in epidemiology and geography but are interested in medical geography.Although geospatial analysis and the availability of geographic information systems is a growing field, there is little literature available regarding medical geography.Medical geography is a field that incorporates geographical and epidemiological concepts in order to investigate relationships between health and location (1).This article will be an introduction to the fundamental issues, including errors and biases, often encountered in geography and epidemiology, which inherently occur in medical geography.All issues should be considered prior to initiating a project in medical geography.Projects in medical geography utilize spatially associated data, along with a number of different analytical techniques to investigate topics of interest.These techniques are applied in order to make assumptions about relationships or interactions within spatial data (2).Three core elements of spatial analysis are cartography, data mining, and mathematical modeling (2).Often approached in the aforementioned order, cartography is utilized first to create a map on which the results can be visualized.Once a foundation has been made, data mining attempts to reveal relationships within the data to develop a better understanding of potential outcomes that could result from the data (2).Finally, once relationships have been identified, mathematical models can be applied to the data, in order to analyze and interpret results, proposing potential answers to questions previously hypothesized (2).Two locational data forms are used in cartography: raster data and vector data.Both can be utilized in spatial analysis; however, each format has its own advantages.When dealing with raster data, the area of space that is being investigated is divided up into a number of equally sized cells or pixels, all of which can be individually classified according to the factor(s) being investigated (e.g., temperature) (3).On the one hand, raster data represent points using a single cell and lines using a number of adjacent cells and shapes using a region of cells (4).On the other hand, vector data represent data as points, lines, and polygons (3).Points are used to represent small features, lines represent long features of small width, and polygons represent features of a given area (4).There are also two forms of attribute data used in spatial analysis: point data and regional data.Point data describe variables that are associated with a specific location, often denoted by x and y coordinates (5); whereas, regional data are associated with a defined area (5).Again, each type of attribute data has its own set of advantages and disadvantages.Vector, raster, point, and regional data can be used individually or in combination, depending on what is being investigated and the desired outcome.In medical geography, there is a natural relationship between data points that are within a certain distance from each other.The first law of geography, defined by Waldo Tobler is "Everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things" (6).Simply put, data points that are close together are more alike than those further apart.This phenomenon occurs frequently in medical geography since we are dealing with factors that are related to space.From this, it is important to be aware of possible exposure to errors and biases throughout your project.If errors and biases are incorporated into a data set, they may promote conclusions that are inaccurate, resulting in wasted time and resources.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,224
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,404
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,224
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,957

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,2240,404
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,003
Bibliométrie0,0030,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0220,015
Communication savante0,0190,030
Science ouverte0,0070,020
Intégrité de la recherche0,0250,025
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0230,012

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,062
Tête enseignante GPT0,411
Écart entre enseignants0,349 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreMéthodes

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueFrontiers in Public HealthMême sujetHealth disparities and outcomesTravaux en français237 207