Without a reconceptualisation of ‘evidence base’ evidence-based person-centred healthcare is an oxymoron.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The call for a renaissance in Evidence-Based Medicine will not result in the delivery of person-centred healthcare. In person-centred healthcare the relative importance of the considerations that matter to the person is elicited and combined, at the point of decision, with the best estimates available on the performance of the available options on those criteria. Prior option evaluations based on average preferences that constitute the conventional 'evidence-base' cannot be part of this process, even if some of the underlying data may be of use. The ethics of transparent person-centred care require the evidence-base to be reconceptualised as the unsynthesised matrix of option performance rates on person-important criteria. Abdicating in the face of the challenges resulting from this reconception is a case of the methodological tail wagging the ethical dog.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | high |
| grok | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | high |
| opus | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | medium |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".