MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1483029978

Abstract 15576: Implementation of a Knowledge Translation and Education Tool to Improve Appropriate Use of Stress Echocardiography at a Large Academic Medical Center in a Public Funded Healthcare System

2014· article· en· W1483029978 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Levitt, Chi-Ming Chow, Jeremy Edwards, Sacha Bhatia

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionAppropriate Use CriteriaIntervention (counseling)Appropriateness criteriaInternal medicineNursingRadiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Previous retrospective studies have suggested that Appropriate Use of Stress Echocardiograms (SE) is sub-optimal, but there have not been effective interventions developed to improve appropriate use of SE. Methods: We conducted a prospective, pre (Jul 1 - Oct 15 2013) and post (Mar 1-May 31 2014) time series analysis of an educational intervention that included the development and implementation of a new ordering requisition that integrated Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for SE within it. Results: During the control period, 221 consecutive were evaluated using the 2011 AUC and 98% were classifiable. Overall the inappropriate rate of classifiable studies was 32%, while the appropriate rate was 64% and uncertain rate 4%. During the intervention period, 156 studies were evaluated and 98% were classifiable. Implementation of the KT tool and educational intervention resulted in an increase in the appropriateness rate to 76% (p=0.016) and a reduction in the inappropriate rate to 19% (p=0.003) of a...

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.337 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout→French-language works237,207→