MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886666492 · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-880-8-215

Developing a Policy and Procedure Framework and Manual for a National Comprehensive Implantable Medical Device Registry in Saudi Arabia

2018· article· en· W2886666492 on OpenAlexaff
Mowafa Househ, Fahad Alshagathrh, Mohammad Khalifa, Khaled Al–Surimi, Yassir Alsaab, Abdulrahman Alanazi, Abdulmajeed Alhamad, Jawad Afzal

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsVemco (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Policy and procedure manuals provide guidance on the operation and governance of medical device registries. In Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) has been developing and implementing a comprehensive national registry for implantable medical devices to facilitate the monitoring of device outcomes through post-market surveillance studies. To help guide the operations of this registry, the SFDA developed a policy and procedure manual. This paper reports on the design of the framework used to develop that manual over the course of one year (2015-2016), using a variety of literature sources, and working with medical device registry and health systems experts. The policy and procedure manual included five key principal level categories, which led to the subsequent creation of seven policies and 28 relevant procedures. The five principal categories were: Staff Engagement, Information Governance, Quality and Auditing, Research, and Reporting. The results of this work could be used to guide the development of policies and procedures for other implantable medical device registries.

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)0.311
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.197
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3110.197
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0170.010
Science and technology studies0.0090.006
Scholarly communication0.0170.016
Open science0.0060.009
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.007

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 head0.322
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.190 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207