MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784325832 · doi:10.1186/s40463-017-0251-x

Head and Neck Surgical Oncology Choosing Wisely Campaign: Imaging for patients with hoarseness, fine needle aspiration for neck mass, and ultrasound for odynophagia

2018· review· en· W2784325832 on OpenAlexaffabout
Antoine Eskander, Eric Monteiro, Dan O’Connell, S. Mark Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMount Sinai HospitalHealth Sciences CentreDalhousie UniversityToronto East General HospitalUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOdynophagiaOtorhinolaryngologyNeck massRadiologyDysphagiaMagnetic resonance imagingFine-needle aspirationHead and neckBiopsySurgeryGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Choosing Wisely Canada, is a campaign designed to raise awareness regarding inappropriate or unnecessary tests and treatments. The Canadian Society of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery and the Canadian Association of Head and Neck Surgical Oncologists developed a Choosing Wisely Canada list to help promote high quality care for patients presenting with disorders of the head and neck: (1) Don't order imaging - computer tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) - as the initial investigation for patients presenting with a chief complaint of hoarseness, (2) Don't perform an open biopsy or excision of a neck mass without having first considered a fine needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy and, (3) Don't order neck ultrasound to investigate odynophagia (discomfort or pain with swallowing) or globus sensation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.299 · 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.

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

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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck SurgerySame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207