MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2746530107 · doi:10.1080/24745332.2017.1331666

Choosing wisely: The Canadian Thoracic Society's list of six things that physicians and patients should question

2017· article· en· W2746530107 on OpenAlex
Samir Gupta, Donna Goodridge, Smita Pakhalé, Kieran McIntyre, Sachin R. Pendharkar

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Respiratory Critical Care and Sleep Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoUniversity of SaskatchewanSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Medical Association
KeywordsMedicineReferralPsychological interventionSpecialtyHealth careFamily medicineMedical emergencyMedical educationNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Choosing Wisely is a campaign that aims to help clinicians and patients engage in conversations regarding unnecessary tests and treatments, in order to improve quality of care and reduce waste in healthcare. Specialty societies are asked to develop lists of commonly used tests and treatments that are not supported by evidence and/or could expose patients to unnecessary harm. The Canadian Thoracic Society appointed a 5-member Choosing Wisely Task Force to develop this list. After establishing evidence-based criteria for recommendation selection and prioritization, they generated an initial list of candidate recommendations from: 1) existing respiratory-related US and Canadian Choosing Wisely recommendations; 2) Canadian Medical Association (CMA) Patient-Oriented Evidence that Matters (POEMs™) rated by ≥ 10% of CMA respondents to: “… help to avoid unnecessary or inappropriate treatment, diagnostic procedures, preventative interventions or a referral…”; and 3) additional suggestions by CTS content experts. The list was serially reduced through voting by members of the Canadian Respiratory Guidelines Committee and the Task Force in three electronic Delphi processes and by members of the CTS in an online poll (members were also asked to suggest additional recommendations). Evidence reviews were performed for the top 10 recommendations. This resulted in the following CTS Choosing Wisely Top 6 List: 1) Don't initiate long-term maintenance inhalers in stable patients with suspected COPD if they have not had confirmation of post-bronchodilator airflow obstruction with spirometry; 2) Don't perform CT screening for lung cancer among patients at low risk for lung cancer; 3) Don't perform chest computed tomography (CT angiography) or ventilation-perfusion scanning to evaluate for possible pulmonary embolism in patients with a low clinical probability and negative results of a highly sensitive D-dimer assay; 4) Don't treat adult cough with antibiotics even if it lasts more than 1 week, unless bacterial pneumonia is suspected (mean viral cough duration is 18 days); 5) Don't initiate medications for asthma (e.g., inhalers, leukotriene receptor antagonists, or other) in patients ≥ 6 years old who have not had confirmation of reversible airflow limitation with spirometry, and in its absence, a positive methacholine or exercise challenge test, or sufficient peak expiratory flow variability; and 6) Don't use antibiotics for acute asthma exacerbations without clear signs of bacterial infection. This list was developed through a rigorous and novel process and addresses overuse in different areas of respiratory medicine in Canada. It can provide a starting point for a systematic implementation process targeting clinicians and patients, to the benefit of patients and the healthcare system in general.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.463
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.071 · 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