MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ASH Joins ‘Choosing Wisely’ Campaign

2013· article· en· W2325540125 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lola Butcher

Bibliographic record

VenueOncology Times · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHematologySpecialtyInternal medicineBlood testIntensive care medicineSurgeryFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The physician-led “Choosing Wisely” campaign of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation, which has huge potential to improve health care quality while lowering costs, received another important boost with the American Society of Hematology's list of five hematology tests, treatments, and procedures that are common—and frequently not appropriate.FigureASH's “Top 5” list is as follows: Limit surveillance computed tomography scans in asymptomatic patients following curative-intent treatment for aggressive lymphoma. Don't use inferior vena cava filters routinely in patients with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE). Do not transfuse more than the minimum number of red blood cell units necessary to relieve symptoms of anemia or to return a patient to a safe hemoglobin range (7 to 8 g/dL in stable, non-cardiac, inpatients). Do not test for thrombophilia in adult patients with VTE occurring in the setting of major transient risk factors (surgery, trauma or prolonged immobility). Do not administer plasma or prothrombin complex concentrates for non-emergent reversal of vitamin K antagonists (i.e. outside of the setting of major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage or anticipated emergent surgery). A manuscript detailing the recommendations is now online ahead of print in Blood (doi: 10.1182/blood-2013-07-518423). In publishing its list, ASH joins ASCO, ASTRO, the American College of Surgeons, the Commission on Cancer, and many other medical societies that are encouraging their members to “choose wisely” when they prescribe tests and treatments. “Hematology is a specialty with many new and increasingly expensive tests and treatments,” the Chair of the ASH Choosing Wisely Task Force, Lisa Hicks, MD, of St. Michael's Hospital and the University of Toronto, said in a news release. “While these new diagnostic and treatment strategies represent important advances, there is also potential to pose significant harm and cost to patients if over- or mis-used. “The ASH Choosing Wisely list serves as a reminder to hematologists to take a step back and question whether certain routinely used procedures are really necessary, and to gradually change their practices to maximize the value of care.” The guiding principles of the Choosing Wisely campaign are evidence, cost, frequency, and scope of practice, but ASH chose to add another criterion: the concept of avoiding harm. Thus, the news release notes, tests, procedures or treatments that are likely to increase the risk of harm were prioritized during ASH's selection process.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.032

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 head0.540
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.027 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncology TimesSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207