MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605294399

Better Data Quality for Better Healthcare Research Results - A Case Study.

2017· article· en· W2605294399 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert D. Hart, Mu-Hsing Kuo

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Data qualityHealth careHealth recordsKey (lock)Data governanceData scienceComputer scienceElectronic health recordBusinessKnowledge managementProcess managementComputer securityMarketingPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electronic Health Records (EHRs) have been identified as a key tool to collect data for healthcare research. However, EHR data must be of sufficient quality to support quality research results. Island Health, BC, Canada has invested and continues to invest in the development of solutions to address the quality of its EHR data and support high quality healthcare studies. This paper examines Island Health's data quality engine, its development and its successful implementation.

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)0.095
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.127
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0950.127
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0040.005
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 head0.669
GPT teacher head0.554
Teacher spread0.115 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicChronic Disease Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207