MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953312545 · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2019.01.014

Real-World Evidence in Healthcare Decision Making: Global Trends and Case Studies From Latin America

2019· review· en· W2953312545 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nahila Justo, Manuel Espinoza, Barbara Ratto, Martha Nicholson, Diego Rosselli, O. Ovcinnikova, Sebastián García Martí, Marcos Bosi Ferraz, Martín Langsam, Michael Drummond

Bibliographic record

VenueValue in Health · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGoverno BrasilInternational Network of Agencies for Health Technology AssessmentNovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
KeywordsReal world evidenceLatin AmericansHealth carePolitical scienceData scienceComputer scienceMedicineEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.014
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.564
GPT teacher head0.616
Teacher spread0.053 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations72
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueValue in HealthSame topicPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsFrench-language works237,207