History of the international societies in health technology assessment: International Society for Technology Assessment in Health Care and Health Technology Assessment International
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Society for Technology Assessment in Health Care (ISTAHC) was formed in 1985. It grew out of the increasing awareness of the international dimensions of health technology assessment (HTA) and the need for new communication methods at the international level. The main function of ISTAHC was to present an annual conference, which gradually grew in size, and also to generally improve in quality from to year. ISTAHC overextended itself financially early in the first decade of the 2000s and had to cease its existence. A new society, Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi), based on many of the same ideas and people, grew up beginning in the year 2003. The two societies have played a large role in making the field of HTA visible to people around the world and providing a forum for discussion on the methods and role of HTA.
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 | 0.027 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".