MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129751406 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.070490

Using decision aids to help patients navigate the "grey zone" of medical decision-making

2007· letter· en· W2129751406 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Annette M. O’Connor

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical decision makingGrey literatureControl (management)Clinical decision makingDecision aidsMedicineActuarial scienceComputer sciencePsychologyRisk analysis (engineering)Intensive care medicineMEDLINEMedical emergencyBusinessArtificial intelligencePathologyAlternative medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many medical decisions exist in a “grey zone,” where the best choice differs depending on how patients weigh the benefits and risks. A common example is the decision of whether to initiate a more aggressive treatment when simpler therapies fail to control moderate or severe symptoms, such as

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0160.027
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.009

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.327 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations48
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207