MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2188609437

Using EMRs to fuel quality improvement.

2015· article· en· W2188609437 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Greiver, Neil Drummond, Richard Birtwhistle, John Queenan, Anita Lambert-Lanning, Dave Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Coding and Health Information
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of AlbertaNorth York General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical recordQuality managementData sciencePrimary careElectronic medical recordComputer scienceQuality (philosophy)Health careHealth recordsMedicineMEDLINEMedical emergencyFamily medicineOperations managementEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasingly, FPs and primary care teams are using electronic medical records (EMRs). There is growing consensus that EMRs facilitate research and epidemiologic surveillance but little evidence yet that they improve patient care or health outcomes.[1][1] Data from EMRs can provide feedback, a core

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)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.229
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.229
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.008

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 head0.731
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.185 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMedical Coding and Health InformationFrench-language works237,207