Data quality in healthcare: A report of practical experience with the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data quality (DQ) is the degree to which a given dataset meets a user's requirements. In the primary healthcare setting, poor quality data can lead to poor patient care, negatively affect the validity and reproducibility of research results and limit the value that such data may have for public health surveillance. To extract reliable and useful information from a large quantity of data and to make more effective and informed decisions, data should be as clean and free of errors as possible. Moreover, because DQ is defined within the context of different user requirements that often change, DQ should be considered to be an emergent construct. As such, we cannot expect that a sufficient level of DQ will last forever. Therefore, the quality of clinical data should be constantly assessed and reassessed in an iterative fashion to ensure that appropriate levels of quality are sustained in an acceptable and transparent manner. This document is based on our hands-on experiences dealing with DQ improvement for the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network database. The DQ dimensions that are discussed here are accuracy and precision, completeness and comprehensiveness, consistency, timeliness, uniqueness, data cleaning and coherence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.231 | 0.266 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".