MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076241310 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.109-4600

UK Health Check contradicts best evidence

2013· article· en· W2076241310 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Neil Chanchlani

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsymptomaticMedicineHealth servicesComputer scienceEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) Health Check program was created to help prevent heart disease and other ailments, but critics say it is unproven, expensive and will lead to problems. “There are bound to be incidental findings in asymptomatic individuals that [general

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)0.089
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.446
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0890.446
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0130.011
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0160.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.010

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.283 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionFrench-language works237,207