MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2755178530 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.733330

Canadian hepatitis C virus screening guideline: a disconnect between evidence and recommendations

2017· letter· en· W2755178530 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Alex Haines, William Wong, Murray Krahn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis C virus research
Canadian institutionsRegional Municipality of WaterlooUniversity of WaterlooToronto General HospitalToronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)GuidelinePublic healthTask forceMedicineEvidence-based practiceEvidence-based medicinePolitical scienceNursingAlternative medicinePublic administrationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We believe that the evidence supporting the recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care[1][1] has been misinterpreted in several key ways. First, we disagree that our decision model (commissioned by the Public Health Agency of Canada) was “very low quality evidence.”[1

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.154
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.154
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0080.003
Research integrity0.0320.045
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.303 · 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
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicHepatitis C virus research→French-language works237,207→