MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2530323043 · doi:10.1111/imj.13212

Evolve osteoporosis and other guidelines avoiding cognitive bias

2016· editorial· en· W2530323043 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J O'donnell

Bibliographic record

VenueInternal Medicine Journal · 2016
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRoyal Australasian College of Physicians
KeywordsMedicineGross domestic productPer capitaLiberian dollarHealth careSpecialtyFamily medicineEconomic growthFinanceEnvironmental healthEconomicsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evolve osteoporosis and other guidelines avoiding cognitive biasEvolve, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians' (RACP) equivalent of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation's Choosing Wisely campaign, was launched in 2015.The aim of these campaigns is to demonstrate to the community the profession's tangible commitment to its social justice principles, 1 which include effecting responsible stewardship of entrusted resources.Unfortunately, early indications are that the RACP programme is taking the same pathway to failure as the initial phases of the ABIM campaign suggesting the need for a reset.As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), inflation-adjusted expenditure for health care in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom has continuously increased for 20 years. 2 In real terms, for the period 2009-2014, the average annual growth in per capita health spending in Australia was 2.0% (down from 2.9% in the preceding 5-year period) while in New Zealand, it was 0.6% (down from 4.1%).As a percentage of GDP, in 2014, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom spent 9.4, 11.0 and 9.1% of their respective GDP on healthcare compared to 20 years earlier when each spent circa 7%.In New Zealand, there was a sharp rise from 8.4% in 2007 to 10.7% in 2008.The ABIM Foundation launched the Choosing Wisely campaign in 2012 3 encouraging specialty groups to adopt the 'Top Five' list approach.This approach encouraged the identification of five diagnostic tests or treatments that are amongst the most expensive and commonly ordered by members of a specific specialty but which have been shown by currently available evidence to provide no meaningful benefit to significant categories of patients.4 Over 12 OECD countries have adopted similar programmes.The primary goal is to reduce waste in the healthcare system and avoid risks associated with unnecessary treatment.At the second RACP sponsored Evolve meeting in Sydney on 7 April 2016, several medical specialty societies adopted the choosing wisely approach and presented their lists of low-value tests or procedures.Several items were duplications of ABIM counterparts.1.The statements are outward looking.2. The statements are educational with no significant measurable impact.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.214
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.214
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.005

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 head0.660
GPT teacher head0.614
Teacher spread0.046 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreEditorial

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternal Medicine JournalSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207