MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897574556 · doi:10.31354/globalce.v1i1.38

Medical Device Risk Management from a Human Factors Perspective

2018· article· en· W2897574556 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony Easty

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Clinical Engineering Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicQuality and Safety in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelevance (law)Perspective (graphical)Risk analysis (engineering)Patient safetyWork (physics)Human errorRisk managementComputer scienceHealth careMedicineEngineeringBusinessArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the ways in which human factors methods can help to enhance the work of established clinical engineering teams by placing a new emphasis on error reduction and patient safety. This approach in many ways represents a natural evolution for departments that are looking to enhance their usefulness and relevance to healthcare. Several examples are given of points at which the introduction of human factors methods can reveal issues related to the safe use of medical devices that are not easily accessible by other means. Adoption and implementation of these methods offers the potential for clinical engineering departments to enhance their role of helping to ensure optimal patient safety.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.398 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueGlobal Clinical Engineering JournalSame topicQuality and Safety in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207