MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150849365 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2009.20659

Lifting the Burden of Chronic Disease: What Has Worked? What Hasn't? What's Next?

2009· article· en· W2150849365 on OpenAlexaff
Sara A. Kreindler

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaWinnipeg Regional Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChronic diseasePsychological interventionMedicineSet (abstract data type)Health careSystematic reviewRisk analysis (engineering)Disease managementBest practiceDiseaseManagement scienceDisease preventionMEDLINEIntensive care medicineProcess managementAlternative medicineComputer scienceHealth management systemPolitical scienceBusinessNursingEnvironmental healthEconomicsEconomic growthManagementPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is emerging consensus that the growing problem of chronic disease demands major health system changes, as envisioned in the Chronic Care Model (original and expanded). Yet implementation research has documented the pitfalls of trying to implement the whole model at once; it is more effective to focus on one highly important change at a time. This article responds to decision-makers' need to set priorities by comparing the strength of evidence for different interventions. It synthesizes a broad range of literature, including numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses, into practical guidance on optimal system design for chronic disease management and prevention.

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)0.084
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.168
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0840.168
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0160.024
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0070.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.404
Teacher spread0.151 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207