MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911982698 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.180841

Using electronic health records for clinical trials: Where do we stand and where can we go?

2019· article· en· W2911982698 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kimberly A. Mc Cord, Lars G. Hemkens

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth recordsElectronic health recordComputer scienceKey (lock)Data scienceHealth dataWorld Wide WebData miningHealth careComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

See related article at [www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/doi/10.9778/cmajo.20180096][1] KEY POINTS Increasing interest in use of routinely collected data for research has been paralleled by a rising interest in using electronic health record (EHR) data for health research, as such records have become more

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)0.298
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.628
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2980.628
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.015
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0260.043
Open science0.0070.008
Research integrity0.0220.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.018

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.356 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations90
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207