MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903093502 · doi:10.1136/bmj.k5105

Doctors demand to see evidence on safety of medical devices approved in Europe

2018· article· en· W2903093502 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Challenges
Canadian institutionsWorld Federation of Science Journalists
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)GuardianEuropean unionEuropean commissionCommissionMedical deviceBusinessPolitical scienceLawMedicineInternational trade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Senior doctors, consumer groups, and campaigners for transparency are urging the European Commission to force the manufacturers of high risk medical devices to make public all the evidence they hold on the safety of their products. The calls came just days after a global investigation into the industry by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, The BMJ , BBC Panorama , the Guardian , and others called the Implant Files, which uncovered thousands of documents showing the rising number of malfunctions and injuries from a range of medical devices.1 A new law for medical device regulation in the European Union was passed last year and comes into effect from 2020. It sets data transparency as one of its main goals, but the European Commission, which has been the subject of intense lobbying from the device industry, has said that it plans to withhold …

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.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.309 · 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