MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2837347473 · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2018-110981

One of the proposed solutions of the EBM Manifesto Educate the public in evidence-based healthcare to make informed decisions

2018· article· en· W2837347473 on OpenAlexaff
Guylène Thériault

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ evidence-based medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsManifestoHealth careEvidence-based medicinePublic relationsPolitical sciencePsychologyComputer scienceMedical educationMEDLINEMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence-based healthcare, shared decision making, minimally disruptive medicine and value-based healthcare are all different tools for shaping the future of healthcare. They represent different ways of addressing various problems many countries are facing in providing more value for patients, improving health and reducing sickness. As a physician, apart from taking care of patients, I teach the use of evidence in practice, to both students and colleagues. In this text though, I want to relate my experience about something different, that is, educating the lay public. For many years now, I have had the opportunity to address groups of men and women aged from 30 to 60 years attending preretirement seminars. In that setting, I taught more than 1500 individuals. The themes I cover are diverse but include life habits and their impact on good health, addressing risks, how screening is a choice and questions they should ask their providers when offered different options in addressing their health issues. I describe some of the lessons I have learnt throughout these years. Some of the conclusions I make have not been formally studied but I share my experience hoping to foster thoughts on how to best address this objective of the EBM manifesto. ### First lesson Patients are very aware of their responsibility to take control of their life.   It might not seem like it in our offices when we see patients one on …

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.125
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.149
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1250.149
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.033
Scholarly communication0.0220.030
Open science0.0040.016
Research integrity0.0320.044
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.006

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 head0.608
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.101 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ evidence-based medicineSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207