MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122281297 · doi:10.1017/s0266462307051537

Primary data collection in health technology assessment

2007· article· en· W2122281297 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle McIsaac, Ron Goeree, James M. Brophy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData collectionGovernment (linguistics)Process (computing)Value (mathematics)Health technologyComputer scienceKnowledge managementManagement scienceProcess managementMedicineBusinessPolitical scienceEngineeringHealth careSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study discusses the value of primary data collection as part of health technology assessment (HTA). Primary data collection can help reduce uncertainty in HTA and better inform evidence-based decision making. However, methodological issues such as choosing appropriate study design and practical concerns such as the value of collecting additional information need to be addressed. The authors emphasize the conditions required for successful primary data collection in HTA: experienced researchers, sufficient funding, and coordination among stakeholders, government, and researchers. The authors conclude that, under specific conditions, primary data collection is a worthwhile endeavor in the HTA 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)0.445
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.631
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.684

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4450.631
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0140.025
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.012
Open science0.0040.010
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.232
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.297 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health CareSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207