MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013144056 · doi:10.1136/bmj.39504.506319.80

Incorporating considerations of resources use into grading recommendations

2008· review· en· W2013144056 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon Guyatt, Andrew D Oxman, Regina Kunz, Roman Jaeschke, Mark Helfand, Alessandro Liberati, Gunn Elisabeth Vist, Holger J. Schünemann

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineGrading (engineering)Resource (disambiguation)Resource useRisk analysis (engineering)Management scienceComputer sciencePsychologyMedicineEngineeringEnvironmental resource managementEconomicsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Guideline panellists have differing opinions on whether resource use should influence decisions on individual patients. As medical care costs rise, resource use considerations become more compelling, but panellists may find dealing with such considerations challenging

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)0.146
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.456
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1460.456
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.007
Bibliometrics0.0170.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.688
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.166 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations413
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207