MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560202270 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofw172.593

Do No Harm: Lessons Learned About Contextualizing Your Findings

2016· article· en· W2560202270 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kimberley Simmonds, Christopher Bell, Xianfang Liu, Margaret L. Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaMinistry of Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHarmDo no harmMedical educationGerontologyPsychiatrySocial psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Post-marketing surveillance of adverse events following vaccination is necessary to monitor vaccine safety. We published a peer-reviewed paper on adverse events following HPV vaccination that included data on emergency department (ED) visits or hospitalizations within 42 days of vaccination. Our findings reported that of the 195,270 women that received 528,913 doses HPV of vaccine, 958 were hospitalized and 19,351 had an ED visit within 42 days of vaccination. We concluded that rates of adverse events after HPV vaccination in Alberta are low and consistent with types of events seen elsewhere. After publication all members of the research team received unusual emails and interview requests. Methods. We describe the sequence of events, hypotheses of the cause of these events, and actions taken. Results. The paper was published online February 26, 2016 with the first inquiry from a Canadian journalist on February 29. In April, two “independent” journalists emailed each research team member requesting an interview. Both emails used similar wording implying that ED utilization was high. By the end of April, a UK tabloid journalist requested an interview and two academic researchers emailed requesting data. The article scored in the 97th percentile of article of the same age (60 days) and source for comments/responses: 95 tweets from nine countries (88 from the public, 5 from science community and 2 from bloggers). Most of the social media comments noted that “9.9% ended up in emergency rooms in just 42 days” and attributed this directly to vaccination. We hypothesize that two factors this high rate of social media commentary: the title of the paper, and the lack of contextualization of the health service utilization. The unusual attention necessitated a plan and comparative data to contextualize the reported hospitalization data. University of Calgary Media Relations assisted us to identify a contact person, standard responses and a communications plan. Conclusion. Our experience demonstrates the importance of contextualizing results to minimize the misinterpretation of study findings. Social media may be used to disseminate misinterpretations of research findings and researchers should prepare accordingly. Disclosures. All authors: No reported disclosures.

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)0.229
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.381
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2290.381
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0140.043
Scholarly communication0.0360.051
Open science0.0090.025
Research integrity0.0170.030
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.386
GPT teacher head0.563
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207