Strategic Analytics: Towards Fully Embedding Evidence in Healthcare Decision-Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) has implemented multiple information technology solutions and collected health-system data to support its programs. There is now an opportunity to leverage these data and perform advanced end-to-end analytics that inform decisions around improving health-system performance. In 2014, CCO engaged in an extensive assessment of its current data capacity and capability, with the intent to drive increased use of data for evidence-based decision-making. The breadth and volume of data at CCO uniquely places the organization to contribute to not only system-wide operational reporting, but more advanced modelling of current and future state system management and planning. In 2012, CCO established a strategic analytics practice to assist the agency's programs contextualize and inform key business decisions and to provide support through innovative predictive analytics solutions. This paper describes the organizational structure, services and supporting operations that have enabled progress to date, and discusses the next steps towards the vision of embedding evidence fully into healthcare decision-making.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.145 | 0.253 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.040 | 0.043 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".