MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555510292 · doi:10.1016/j.berh.2016.08.006

Use of eHealth technologies to enable the implementation of musculoskeletal Models of Care: Evidence and practice

2016· review· en· W2555510292 on OpenAlexaff
Helen Slater, Blake F. Dear, Mark Merolli, Linda Li, Andrew M. Briggs

Bibliographic record

VenueBest Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaResearch Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordseHealthMedicineSustainabilityHealth careKnowledge managementProcess managementNursingBusinessComputer scienceEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions are the second leading cause of morbidity-related burden of disease globally. EHealth is a potentially critical factor that enables the implementation of accessible, sustainable and more integrated MSK models of care (MoCs). MoCs serve as a vehicle to drive evidence into policy and practice through changes at a health system, clinician and patient level. The use of eHealth to implement MoCs is intuitive, given the capacity to scale technologies to deliver system and economic efficiencies, to contribute to sustainability, to adapt to low-resource settings and to mitigate access and care disparities. We follow a practice-oriented approach to describing the 'what' and 'how' to harness eHealth in the implementation of MSK MoCs. We focus on the practical application of eHealth technologies across care settings to those MSK conditions contributing most substantially to the burden of disease, including osteoarthritis and inflammatory arthritis, skeletal fragility-associated conditions and persistent MSK pain.

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)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.307
GPT teacher head0.604
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
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

Citations97
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBest Practice & Research Clinical RheumatologySame topicMusculoskeletal Disorders and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207