MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944947613 · doi:10.1177/8755122519849885

Searching the Literature: A Simple Step-Wise Process for Evidence-Based Medicine

2019· article· en· W2944947613 on OpenAlexaff
Kane Larson, Sae Gyul Jung, Simon P. Albon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacy Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimple (philosophy)Process (computing)Task (project management)SortingHealth careComputer scienceSystematic reviewMEDLINEPsychologyMedicineEpistemologyPolitical scienceAlgorithmEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sifting and sorting through the literature and research on health care is an important skill for practicing pharmacists. It is vital for staying current and, most important, helping with the critical task of avoiding adverse drug events in the optimal care of patients. Today, searching this literature efficiently and effectively is increasingly difficult at a time when clinical knowledge is growing exponentially. This article aims to provide a systematic process for going through the literature in an evidence-based manner.

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)0.147
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.259
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1470.259
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.007
Bibliometrics0.0520.024
Science and technology studies0.0100.006
Scholarly communication0.0160.017
Open science0.0090.015
Research integrity0.0080.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.018

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 head0.230
GPT teacher head0.588
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmacy TechnologySame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207