MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2536304172 · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(16)30254-6

Medical journals and Wikipedia: a global health matter

2016· letter· en· W2536304172 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Lancet Global Health · 2016
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueWikis in Education and Collaboration
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesVlaamse regeringAlexion Pharmaceuticals
Mots-clésScopusEpidemiologyMedicinePublic healthGlobal healthFamily medicineMEDLINELibrary sciencePediatricsPolitical scienceLawComputer sciencePathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Approximately 7000 stillbirths occur daily worldwide, and the vast majority of them (98%) take place in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).1Lawn JE Blencowe H Waiswa P et al.for The Lancet Ending Preventable Stillbirths Series study groupwith The Lancet Stillbirth Epidemiology investigator groupStillbirths: rates, risk factors, and acceleration towards 2030.Lancet. 2016; 387: 587-603Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (856) Google Scholar Despite this enormous burden, progress to reduce the death toll is slow and insufficient.2Blencowe H Cousens S Jassir FB et al.for The Lancet Stillbirth Epidemiology Investigator GroupNational, regional, and worldwide estimates of stillbirth rates in 2015, with trends from 2000: a systematic analysis.Lancet Glob Health. 2016; 4: e98-108Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (533) Google Scholar WHO released its Making every baby count3WHOMaking every baby count. World Health Organization, Geneva2016http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/249523/1/9789241511223-eng.pdf?ua=1Google Scholar guide in 2016, which includes strategies aimed at addressing the challenge of stillbirths. Given the flurry of activity and attention on stillbirths from the Lancet Stillbirth Epidemiology investigator group and WHO, we expect that the wealth of information about stillbirths that is generated will filter down in a timely manner to where it is needed most: the general public. As is often the case for Wikipedians, we found that the stillbirth page4WikipediaStillbirth.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stillbirth&oldid=730929233Google Scholar on the English language Wikipedia was missing important information—eg, the major causes of stillbirth (malaria and syphilis) were not mentioned, and details on epidemiological aspects were scarce.1Lawn JE Blencowe H Waiswa P et al.for The Lancet Ending Preventable Stillbirths Series study groupwith The Lancet Stillbirth Epidemiology investigator groupStillbirths: rates, risk factors, and acceleration towards 2030.Lancet. 2016; 387: 587-603Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (856) Google Scholar Unsurprisingly, the Wikipedia pages on stillbirth in about 20 other languages were less detailed than the English language version. This worried us because not only is Wikipedia the world's most used source of health information online, but it is also one of the most widely used sources by medical students, doctors, and other health-care providers.5Heilman JM West AG Wikipedia and medicine: quantifying readership, editors, and the significance of natural language.J Med Internet Res. 2015; 17: e62Crossref PubMed Scopus (82) Google Scholar, 6Laurent MR Vickers TJ Seeking health information online: does Wikipedia matter?.J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009; 16: 471-479Crossref PubMed Scopus (216) Google Scholar It is not difficult to imagine that the first online port of call for a woman, her partner, or her family following a stillbirth would be Wikipedia. Furthermore, many policy makers and other key stakeholders also read Wikipedia. Wikipedia is particularly relevant for LMICs, where internet access is often slow and expensive. We have been involved in developing mobile apps for offline use which contain all of Wikipedia's anatomy, pharmacology, medicine, and sanitation content in an attempt to address this issue. We have seen tens of thousands of downloads of the apps, with the majority from LMICs.7Google PlayMedical Wikipedia (Offline).https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.kiwix.kiwixcustomwikimedGoogle Scholar There is clearly a huge unmet need for health-related information, to the extent that some mobile network operators in LMICs do not charge for data costs when users are accessing Wikipedia (Wikipedia Zero8Wikimedia FoundationWikipedia zero.https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_ZeroGoogle Scholar). However, this generous practice has been cautioned against because some people feel it infringes upon internet neutrality (the principle that internet providers should treat all data equally). In addition to the stillbirth article there are many others on Wikipedia associated with global health that require further attention. Wikipedia has the potential of being bolstered as a key tool for global public health promotion.9Heilman JM Kemmann E Bonert M et al.Wikipedia: a key tool for global public health promotion.J Med Internet Res. 2011; 13: e14Crossref PubMed Scopus (155) Google Scholar However, Wikipedia struggles to attract medical doctors or other trained health professionals as editors. We echo previous authors in inviting the medical community—and in particular medical journals—to incentivise Wikipedia editing with the goal of bringing about increased access to reliable, understandable, and up-to-date health information9Heilman JM Kemmann E Bonert M et al.Wikipedia: a key tool for global public health promotion.J Med Internet Res. 2011; 13: e14Crossref PubMed Scopus (155) Google Scholar in multiple languages. PLoS Computational Biology, for example, encourages its authors to post topics on Wikipedia.10Wodak SJ Mietchen D Collings AM Russell RB Bourne PE Topic pages: PLoS computational biology meets Wikipedia.PLoS Comput Biol. 2012; 8: e1002446Crossref PubMed Scopus (15) Google Scholar Promoting inclusive and equitable learning opportunities for all speaks to the aspirations of the Sustainable Development Goals. We suggest that medical journals actively promote and incentivise Wikipedia editing by the health-care community so that the most commonly used source of online health information is as reliable as possible. MRL reports a Research Foundation Flanders PhD Fellowship grant, and personal fees from Flanders' Agricultural Marketing Board, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, and Novartis. All authors are members of Wikimedia projects including Wikipedia and Wikiversity.

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,041
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,040
Tête enseignante GPT0,454
Écart entre enseignants0,414 · 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