MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764390211 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2016.24617

ICES Report: Increasing Access to Health Administrative Data with ICES Data & Analytic Services

2016· article· en· W2764390211 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Lisa Ishiguro, Refik Saskin, Marian J. Vermeulen, Erika Yates, Nadia Gunraj, J. Charles Victor

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of OntarioOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchCancer Care Ontario
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)BusinessData accessPublic relationsHealth careBest practiceResearch dataData sciencePolitical scienceComputer scienceData curation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) is one of only a few organizations in Ontario permitted to access, link and analyze health administrative data for the purpose of generating evidence to inform decisions in policy and practice. Although ICES is a leading research institute, its access to the data has historically been restricted to scientists with an ICES affiliation. This requirement, designed to meet ICES' data privacy and security obligations, created barriers with respect to the widespread use of Ontario's data assets. In 2014, as part of the government's commitment to the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research, ICES launched the Data & Analytic Services platform, which is aimed at increasing access to data and analytic services to investigators external to ICES. In making the data widely available to the broader research community, this initiative engages investigators involved in front-line care, stimulates new avenues of research and fosters collaboration that was previously challenging or unfeasible.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.513
GPT teacher head0.590
Teacher spread0.076 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207