MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084758923 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2013.23471

Assessing the Feasibility of Extracting Clinical Information to Create Quality Indicators from Primary Healthcare Practice EMRs

2013· article· en· W2084758923 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Fred Burge, Beverley Lawson, Kristine Van Aarsen, Wayne Putnam

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNova scotiaQuality (philosophy)Health careBest practiceQuality managementElectronic medical recordPrimary health careMedical recordMedicineHealth information technologyElectronic health recordPrimary careClinical PracticeNursingFamily medicineBusinessPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2011, a panel of primary healthcare (PHC) providers in Nova Scotia rated 19 of 35 selected Canadian Institute for Health Information (2006) clinical quality indicators (QIs) as "acceptable." In this study, the authors explored the feasibility of extracting electronic medical record (EMR) data required to create these PHC QI measures.

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)0.268
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.568
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2680.568
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.369
GPT teacher head0.595
Teacher spread0.226 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207