MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1967655958 · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7452.1338-d

New safety study quantifies medical errors in Canadian hospitals

2004· article· en· W1967655958 on OpenAlexaffabout
Barbara Kermode-Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsToronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatient safetyMedical emergencyComputer scienceMedicinePolitical scienceHealth careLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first national study in Canada of the safety of hospital patients estimates that one in 13 people (7.5%) hospitalised have experienced an adverse event as a result of their care. Researchers from seven Canadian universities analysed data on adverse events from 3745 adult patients' charts, randomly selected from 20 acute care hospitals in five provinces ( CMAJ 2004;170:1678-86). They described an adverse event as “an unintended injury or complication resulting in death, disability or prolonged hospital stay caused by health care management rather than the patient's underlying condition.” Of the 255 adverse …

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.723

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0130.017
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.384 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ→Same topicPatient Safety and Medication Errors→French-language works237,207→