Usability evaluation of family physicians' interaction with the Comorbidity Ontological Modeling and ExecuTion System (COMET).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess how well the COMET system meets the functional goals and usability needs of family physicians (FP) for the management of patients who have comorbid chronic heart failure (CHF) and atrial fibrillation (AF). DESIGN: Nonexperimental post-interaction Think Aloud Sessions and survey involving Likert scale questionnaires. PARTICIPANTS: Licensed Family Physicians in Nova Scotia. INTERVENTION: A clinical decision support tool called "COMET - Co-morbidity Ontological Modeling & ExecuTion". COMET's main purpose is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of patients with co-morbid CHF-AF in a family practice setting. RESULTS: Our study suggested that although the participant family physicians are potential users of the clinical decision support software like COMET, the most common usability problems encountered are related to inadequate information content, navigation, and time and effort for data entry. We recommend that a field usability testing of a CDSS using think aloud protocols in conjunction with surveys is an effective method to uncover usability problems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".