MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071311183 · doi:10.1177/154193120705101128

Challenges with applying FMEA to the process for reading labels on injectable drug containers

2007· article· en· W2071311183 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer Jeon, Sylvia Hyland, Catherine M. Burns, Kathryn Momtahan

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersVA National Center for Patient SafetyU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationCanadian Patient Safety Institute
KeywordsFailure mode and effects analysisProcess (computing)CriticalityComputer scienceReading (process)Risk analysis (engineering)Failure mode, effects, and criticality analysisProcess managementReliability engineeringEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a part of a study that aims to evaluate and improve the labelling of containers for injectable drugs, Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) was applied to the label reading process. Implementing a FMEA on a small-scale cognitive process involved various challenges including difficulties in representing the process, defining the failure modes, causes and effects, developing the rating scales for criticality, and rating the criticality of the failure modes. The failure modes were rated via two focus groups of healthcare professionals. The results highlight complexities and potential pitfalls with applying FMEA to the label reading process.

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)0.110
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.304
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1100.304
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207