MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785833492 · doi:10.21037/mhealth.2018.01.01

Telemedicine and medical abortion: dispelling safety myths, with facts

2018· letter· en· W2785833492 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenuemHealth · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsTelemedicineMedical abortionAbortionHealth careMedical emergencyMedicineNursingPublic relationsBusinessInternet privacyPolitical scienceComputer sciencePregnancyLawMisoprostol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Telemedicine has widespread implications to improve health for individuals who are restricted by geographic barriers from access to high quality care. Successful utilization of this is exemplified by provision of early medical abortion in the United States. Though research has consistently supported the effectiveness of telemedicine for provision of medical abortion compared to in-person care, concerns about safety have led many states to pass laws prohibiting the use of telemedicine to provide medical abortion (1). Grossman and Grindlay’s paper provides compelling evidence that highlights telemedicine provision for medical abortions to be as safe as in-person care (2). This is important to facilitate its integration within healthcare systems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.295 · 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