MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982716115 · doi:10.4236/health.2014.618274

Prospectively Recording Errors Is Valuable in Reducing Complications

2014· article· en· W1982716115 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline Gunaratnam, Adetunji Oremakinde, Mark Bernstein

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbarrassmentHuman errorMedicineComplaintProspective cohort studyValue (mathematics)Subject (documents)Risk analysis (engineering)PsychologyComputer scienceSurgerySocial psychologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Errors have traditionally been a less commonly discussed topic but are becoming increasingly examined due to a trend towards expanded awareness about the high human and financial cost of errors in medicine. Recording and reporting of errors has been a difficult issue in the health sector due to fear of litigation from patients, complaint to governing bodies, and embarrassment from colleagues. In this article we examine the advantages of prospective error recording. The studies on this subject report that the culture of prospective error recording is of high value in improving most parameters of errors and may indeed reduce complications.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207