MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056867332 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2012.23195

Are the Creation and Maintenance of Databases in Healthcare Worthwhile? An Example of a Unique, Population-Based, Radiation Therapy Database

2012· article· en· W2056867332 on OpenAlexaff
Stewart M. Jackson, Scott Tyldesley, B. Baerg, Ivo A. Olivotto

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDatabaseAuditPopulationMedicineHealth careBusinessEnvironmental healthComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A population-based prospective database targeting 15 key radiation therapy (RT) features was initiated in British Columbia in 1984. This 25-year outcome report assessed the utility of the database and demonstrated that such a database can be used to (1) describe population-based utilization of a health service, (2) inform treatment policy recommendations, (3) inform system planning and resource allocation, (4) audit regional and individual oncology practices, (5) assess whether new observations from randomized trials have been translated into population health gains and (6) produce peer-reviewed publications. Health system managers and researchers could benefit from the development and support of such databases.

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)0.001
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 score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207