MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158165432 · doi:10.4338/aci-2011-04-cr-0026

Using real-time alerts for clinical trials

2011· article· en· W2158165432 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Clinical Informatics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical emergencyClinical trialPharmacyMedical prescriptionRandomized controlled trialIdentification (biology)TelemedicineEmergency medicineHealth careFamily medicineInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are widely accepted as a necessary step in evaluating the safety and efficacy of new pharmaceutical products. In order for a sufficiently powered study, a clinical trial depends on the effective and unbiased recruitment of eligible patients. Trials involving seasonal diseases like influenza pose additional challenges. OBJECTIVE: This is a feasibility study of a mobile real-time alerting system to systematically identify potential study subjects for a randomized controlled trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of early intervention with interferon alfacon-1 for patients hospitalized for influenza virus infection. METHODS: The alerting system was setup in a 471-bed acute care teaching hospital, enabled with computerized physician order entry (CPOE) and a rules-based alerting system. Patients were identified from the entire hospital using two alerts types: pharmacy prescription records for antiviral drugs, and positive influenza laboratory results. Email alerts were generated and sent to BlackBerry(®) devices carried by the study personnel for a 6 month period. The alerts were archived automatically on a secure server and were exported for analysis in Microsoft Access. RESULTS: Over a period of 21 weeks, 779 total alerts were received. The study team was alerted to 241 patients, of whom 85 were potential study subjects. The alert system identified all but one of the patients independently identified by infection control. CONCLUSIONS: Real-time identification of potential study subjects is possible with the integration of computerized physician order entry and BlackBerry(®) technology. It is a viable method for the systematic identification of patients throughout a hospital, particularly for trials investigating time-sensitive disease progression.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.070
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0700.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.816
GPT teacher head0.672
Teacher spread0.145 · 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