MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2303170662

An AOA critical issue. Medical errors in orthopaedics: practical pointers for prevention.

2002· article· en· W2303170662 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David A. Wong, James H. Herndon, Terry S. Canale

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer security
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 1999 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report To Err is Human 1 focused the attention of the public and the media on adverse events occurring during the treatment of patients. Eye-catching newspaper headlines suggested that at least 44,000 and possibly high as 98,000 patients died yearly in the United States as a consequence of 1. However, even prior to publication of the IOM report, a number of professional medical associations, including the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA), had recognized the importance of medical errors and had initiated programs to help physicians to foster a culture of patient safety. The IOM report did serve to heighten awareness of patient-safety issues in the minds of both patients and orthopaedic surgeons. Heretofore, prevention of medical errors had been considered a worthy, but cheerless matter deserving only limited time and resources in an era of ever-contracting medical finances. In the To Err is Human report, the IOM challenged professional medical organizations to make patient safety a priority item in their agendas, implored medical schools to include patient safety as part of their curricula, and urged regulatory agencies to monitor patient-safety data. In addition, patients were encouraged to be proactive in their own care and to be conscious of safety issues. In this new environment of awareness, the initiation of patient-safety programs has taken on a higher priority. Professional medical organizations such as the Canadian Orthopaedic Association and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons have been acknowledged for their foresight and willingness not only to take on but also to offer constructive solutions to a difficult and unpopular problem. The Canadian Orthopaedic Association, the American Orthopaedic Association, and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons have embraced a commitment to patient safety for a number …

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0320.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0680.035

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.338 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations22
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207