MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1971966327 · doi:10.3747/co.19.1224

A Retrospective Chart Review Validates Indicator Results and Provides Insight into Reasons for Non-Concordance with Evidence-Based Guidelines

2012· article· en· W1971966327 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Julie Klein-Geltink, Tonia Forte, Rami Rahal, Jin Niu, Danhua He, Gina Lockwood, Winson Y. Cheung, Gail Darling, Heather Bryant

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkBC Cancer AgencyPublic Health OntarioCanadian Partnership Against Cancer
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConcordanceColorectal cancerChartRetrospective cohort studyGeneral partnershipEvidence-based medicineMedical physicsCancerFamily medicineAlternative medicineSurgeryInternal medicinePathologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of the system performance initiative of the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, indicators measuring treatment practice patterns across the country relative to evidence-based guidelines were first published in 2010 and are updated annually. Among the treatment indicators examined is the percentage of resected stage ii and iii rectal cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant (preoperative) radiation therapy (RT), the treatment approach recommended for locally advanced rectal cancer

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)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.134
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.134
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.460
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.103 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Oncology→Same topicClinical practice guidelines implementation→French-language works237,207→