MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894073351 · doi:10.1002/gch2.201870194

Human‐Centered Design: Developing Evidence to Decision Frameworks and an Interactive Evidence to Decision Tool for Making and Using Decisions and Recommendations in Health Care (Global Challenges 9/2018)

2018· article· en· W2894073351 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Rosenbaum, Jenny Moberg, Claire Glenton, Holger J. Schünemann, Simon Lewin, Elie A. Akl, Reem A. Mustafa, Angela Morelli, Joshua P. Vogel, Pablo Alonso‐Coello, Gabriel Rada, Juan Vásquez, Elena Parmelli, A. Metin Gülmezog̈lu, Signe Flottorp, Andrew D Oxman

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Challenges · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStakeholderHealth careContext (archaeology)Knowledge managementIntervention (counseling)Management sciencePsychologyProcess managementComputer scienceBusinessMedicineNursingPublic relationsPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework is a tool to help groups make systematic, transparent, and adaptable healthcare recommendations or decisions. Through a detailed description of the multi-stakeholder development of this intervention, Sarah E. Rosenbaum and co-workers present in article number 1700081 important user and stakeholder perspectives relevant for anyone seeking to use or adapt the EtD framework, or who plans to develop similar approaches for supporting groups making evidence-informed decisions in the context of healthcare or other domains.

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)0.410
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.352
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.590
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4100.352
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0110.006
Science and technology studies0.0070.022
Scholarly communication0.0220.014
Open science0.0090.025
Research integrity0.0110.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.793
GPT teacher head0.705
Teacher spread0.089 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal ChallengesSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207