MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2260795342

Inadequacy of primary health care test request guidelines - lack of an evidence base : clinical practice : SAMJ forum

2009· article· en· W2260795342 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John C. Stanfliet, Jeanne King, Tahir S. Pillay

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth African Medical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePrimary careTest (biology)Family medicineHealth carePrimary health careEnvironmental healthPopulation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence suggests that 3 - 4% of patient encounters in primary health care result in blood tests being requested. There is compelling evidence of significant misuse and poor utilisation of many laboratory tests, which results in an economic burden and other problems including further investigation of false-positive results. Patients have high expectations that blood tests be performed and have little understanding of the limitations of testing. The frequency of test ordering is much higher in the USA and Canada, for example, than in the UK, without any overt difference in the quality of care. There are suggestions that 30 - 50% of tests are unnecessary, and that about 15% of abnormal results are not acted upon.

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 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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.292
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.292
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.006
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 head0.699
GPT teacher head0.638
Teacher spread0.061 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouth African Medical JournalSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207