MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137940179 · doi:10.1017/s0266462312000359

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY REASSESSMENT: SCOPE, METHODOLOGY, & LANGUAGE

2012· editorial· en· W2137940179 on OpenAlexaff
Tom Noseworthy, Fiona Clement

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · 2012
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Health technologyProcess (computing)Technology assessmentHealth careMedicineRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessManagement scienceComputer scienceProcess managementEngineering ethicsEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health systems are challenged continuously to provide the highest quality universal health care within their means. While for 30 years, health technology assessment (HTA) has contributed to the process of evidence-informed decision making and the managed entry of new technologies, its remit has not expanded to include assessment of technologies currently in use, as a means of managing their use and potentially their exit. We propose that health technology reassessment (HTR) become standard practice, an integral part of all health technology assessment agencies, and that we develop standardized models and methodologies for reassessment drawing from what we have learned from 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 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)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.233
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.233
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.018
Scholarly communication0.0180.012
Open science0.0070.003
Research integrity0.0160.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.253
GPT teacher head0.560
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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

Citations34
Published2012
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