MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of Electronic Medical Record Content Standards to Collect Pan-Canadian Primary Health Care Indicator Data

2009· article· en· W133652137 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patricia Sullivan-Taylor, Shaheena Mukhi

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Health Information
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectronic health recordQuality (philosophy)Health careMedical recordBusinessMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2006 the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) released a set of 105 pan-Canadian Primary Health Care (PHC) indicators. This was followed by an assessment of data gaps, which prevented the calculation of the indicators, and the data collection options available to close the gaps. A quality review of Electronic Medical Record (EMR) data indicated a requirement for content standards. In order to assist the provinces as they developed requests for proposal for PHC-based EMRs, the EMR content standards project was born. Considerable effort was made to identify standards for the Electronic Health Record (EHR) including existing national and international EHR content. As well, CIHI attempted to align the content standards with those of other projects such as the Physician Office System Requirements (POSR). The outcome of this project was a set of EMR content standards for 12 pan-Canadian PHC indicators. The standards will be used to develop a prototype of a PHC reporting system that collects and analyzes data to generate clinical quality indicators for regional and longitudinal comparisons. In late 2008, CIHI will release the pan-Canadian PHC Core Reporting Data Set. This project has developed EMR content standards to better understand PHC in Canada.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.252
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207