MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2748018347 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.170807

Routinely collected data: the importance of high-quality diagnostic coding to research

2017· letter· en· W2748018347 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Stuart G. Nicholls, Sinéad Langan, Eric I. Benchimol

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Coding and Health Information
Canadian institutionsOttawa Public HealthChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchWellcome Trust
KeywordsData scienceComputer scienceCoding (social sciences)Data collectionKey (lock)Data qualityHealth recordsInformation retrievalData miningHealth careStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

See related article at [www.cmajopen.ca/content/5/3/E617][1] KEY POINTS Routinely collected health data are data collected for purposes other than research or without specific a priori research questions developed before collection.[1][2] Examples include clinical information from electronic health

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)0.179
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.578
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1790.578
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.016
Scholarly communication0.0090.016
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0200.033
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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 head0.418
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.112 · 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
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

Citations54
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicMedical Coding and Health InformationFrench-language works237,207