MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W14704210 · doi:10.29085/9781856049030.004

Changing technology to meet clinicians’ information needs

2018· book-chapter· en· W14704210 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas R. Hardiker, Joanna Dundon, Jessie McGowan

Bibliographic record

VenueFacet eBooks · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation technologyAction (physics)Information systemInformation needsHealth information technologyKnowledge managementMedicineComputer scienceEngineeringHealth careWorld Wide WebPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Information technology has dramatically changed all our lives over recent years. For those working in the health sector, this has been no exception. This chapter begins with an overview by Nicholas Hardiker of the information needs of clinicians and the technology and information systems that may be used to answer them. This is followed by two examples of that technology in action: the first is a description of the Map of Medicine clinical information system by Joanna Dundon, and the second, by Jessie McGowan, describes a project which uses personal digital assistants (PDAs) to bring clinical information directly to the clinicians who need it. CLINICIANS’ INFORMATION NEEDS Nicholas R. Hardiker Clinicians face important decisions every day. They must be able to answer, sometimes immediately, a range of questions: ‘What is the accepted assessment process for a particular group of patients?’; ‘What is the most likely diagnosis given a set of signs and symptoms?’; ‘What is the most effective treatment for a particular condition?’; ‘What are the potential adverse effects of a particular medicine?’; and so on. The process of asking and answering clinical questions has been summarized as: (1) recognizing uncertainty; (2) formulating a question; (3) pursuing an answer; (4) finding an answer; and (5) applying the answer in practice. Most questions go unanswered – clinicians do not always pursue answers to their questions, perhaps because of doubt that an answer actually exists. And where clinicians do pursue answers, the answers cannot always be found, perhaps due to lack of time, an inability to access appropriate resources or an inability to navigate a particular resource (Ely et al., 2005). Potential solutions rest with clinicians themselves – selecting the most appropriate resource, formulating questions to match particular resources and using more effective search terms. Other solutions concern clinical inform ation resources and systems that seek to make relevant information more accessible at the point of care – anticipating questions that may arise in practice and providing clearer, more explicit and actionable answers (Ely et al., 2007). An understanding of clinical infor mation needs is an important precondition to the development of clinical information resources and systems (Smith, 1996). The focus of this chapter is on the resources and systems themselves.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.011

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFacet eBooksSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207