MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911808899 · doi:10.36834/cmej.43071

Less is more: a rationalization of daily labwork

2018· article· en· W2911808899 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Barry Chan, Alasdair Nazerali‐Maitland, Wilma M. Hopman, David Zelt, Ross Morton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Education Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHospital Admissions and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityKingston General HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRationalization (economics)PhlebotomySummative assessmentMedicinePatient careMedical emergencyIntensive care medicineFormative assessmentPsychologyNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Routine daily phlebotomy can often act as a replacement for direct patient care. Some tests are necessary to gauge treatment response, however many are unnecessary and increase a patient’s risk of complications and can impede laboratory processing times. This study addresses the effects of providing resident trainees, who often lack an understanding of the financial impact of the tests they order, with summative feedback. This encouraged them to be resource-conscious. Internal Medicine teams were provided with weekly laboratory spending reports and this resulted in a 33% reduction in Per Person Per Day spending. No changes in mortality were noted.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
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)0.0470.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Education JournalSame topicHospital Admissions and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207