MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A measurement framework for adherence in patient decision aid trials applied in a systematic review subanalysis

2016· review· en· W2463793135 on OpenAlexafffund
Logan Trenaman, Anna Selva, Sophie Desroches, Kavita Singh, Janice Bissonnette, Nick Bansback, Dawn Stacey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité LavalCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesOttawa HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Coastal HealthVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteSt. Paul's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineSystematic reviewMEDLINEMedical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.511
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.666
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5110.666
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.040
Bibliometrics0.0170.017
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0040.011
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.882
GPT teacher head0.692
Teacher spread0.190 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical EpidemiologySame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207