Informing patients of relevant health information and innovations: patient recall or annual physical?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently the NEJM published an interesting debate on the value of the annual physical (also known as "periodic health examination") (Goroll 2015)."Today, because of the rapid growth of medical knowledge and the widening application of technology to medicine, there is a particular need for a continuing authoritative review of, standards for both preventive and therapeutic strategies.Some of these strategies are subsumed under the general category of the periodic health examination."(Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination 1979).Although the current debate of the annual physical has narrowly focused on preventive strategies in healthy individuals and building patient-physicians relationship, recent breakthrough clinical innovation in many fields, especially in genomic medicine, widens the need of review to new effective therapy and diagnostics.This is the case because genomic medicine indicates new therapeutic treatments and targets, and the costs of sequencing have been decreasing over time.josha.org
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.057 | 0.245 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".