MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979895279 · doi:10.1542/peds.2019-0817

Seeking a Second Opinion on Social Media

2019· article· en· W2979895279 on OpenAlexaff
Amy E. Caruso Brown, Joshua Arthur, Lauren Hall Mutrie, John D. Lantos

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsPediatric Oncology Group
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSocial mediaMedical informationMedical ethicsPublic relationsFamily medicineLawPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social media pervades all aspects of our lives. In medicine, it has changed the ways that patients and parents get health information, advocate for particular treatments for themselves and their children, and raise money for expensive treatments. In this Ethics Rounds, we present a case in which the use of social media seemed to cross the boundaries of acceptable professionalism. What should the ground rules be for doctors who are tempted to give medical opinions online about patients whom they have never seen?

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0170.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.006

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207