MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2256860995 · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004070

Measuring the effect of Choosing Wisely: an integrated framework to assess campaign impact on low-value care

2015· review· en· W2256860995 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Quality & Safety · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Health InformationOttawa Public HealthWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsVaccinationDNA vaccinationVirologyImmune systemDengue virusAntigenImmunologyComputational biologyBiologyMedicineDengue feverImmunization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Choosing Wisely campaign began in the USA in 2012 to encourage physicians and patients to discuss inappropriate and potentially harmful tests, treatments and procedures. Since its inception, the campaign has grown substantially and has been adopted by 12 countries around the world. Of great interest to countries implementing the campaign, is the effectiveness of Choosing Wisely to reduce overutilisation. This article presents an integrated measurement framework that may be used to assess the impact of a Choosing Wisely campaign on physician and provider awareness and attitudes on low-value care, provider practice behaviour and overuse of low-value services.

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)0.081
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0810.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.772
GPT teacher head0.674
Teacher spread0.098 · 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