MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966716464 · doi:10.1086/503449

Healthcare Epidemiology is <i>the</i> Paradigm for Patient Safety

2002· article· en· W1966716464 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William E. Scheckler

Bibliographic record

VenueInfection Control and Hospital Epidemiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpidemiologyHealth careMedicinePatient safetyFamily medicineMEDLINEMedical emergencyPolitical sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I was honored to receive the 2001 Lectureship Award from the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). It was my intent during the talk to review our field and implications that some of the new initiatives called “patient safety” have for our expertise. This article is based on the SHEA Lectureship that was given April 1, 2001, at the SHEA Annual Meeting in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. This article consists of four sections. First, I review lessons learned from colleagues during the 33 years that I have been associated with the field of hospital epidemiology and infection control, since my first days at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Second, I explore issues raised by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on patient safety, adverse events, and medical errors, evaluating research that went into the extrapolation of the numbers of preventable deaths that this report highlighted. Those deaths gained everyone's attention. Third, I review the field of healthcare epidemiology, highlighting the three decades of success in our field in enhancing the safety of patients, improving their outcomes, and making a difference in the quality of medical care received in the United States. Finally, I discuss the challenges that hospital epidemiology currently faces and the opportunities that come with the expertise we have developed during more than 30 years.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablemedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.067
Scholarly communication0.0280.039
Open science0.0030.014
Research integrity0.0140.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

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

Citations13
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfection Control and Hospital EpidemiologySame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207