MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2240559944 · doi:10.2345/0899-8205-49.6.446

Medical Device Risk Management For Performance Assurance Optimization and Prioritization

2015· article· en· W2240559944 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

VenueBiomedical Instrumentation & Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicQuality and Safety in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsWinnipeg Regional Health Authority
FundersU.S. Food and Drug Administration
KeywordsQuality assurancePrioritizationRisk managementRisk analysis (engineering)Risk assessmentScheduleRisk management frameworkComputer scienceClinical engineeringIT risk managementOperations managementManagement scienceEngineeringMedicineHealth careBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Performance assurance (PA) is an integral component of clinical engineering medical device risk management. For that reason, the clinical engineering (CE) community has made concerted efforts to define appropriate risk factors and develop quantitative risk models for efficient data processing and improved PA program operational decision making. However, a common framework that relates the various processes of a quantitative risk system does not exist. This article provides a perspective that focuses on medical device quality and risk-based elements of the PA program, which include device inclusion/exclusion, schedule optimization, and inspection prioritization. A PA risk management framework is provided, and previous quantitative models that have contributed to the advancement of PA risk management are examined. A general model for quantitative risk systems is proposed, and further perspective on possible future directions in the area of PA technology is also provided.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.355 · 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