MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993669671 · doi:10.1002/14651858.ed000143

Cochrane Sustainable Healthcare: evidence for action on too much medicine

2019· editorial· en· W2993669671 on OpenAlexafffund
Minna Johansson, Lisa Bero, Xavier Bonfill, Matteo Bruschettini, Sarah Garner, Claire Glenton, Russell Harris, Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, Wendy Levinson, Tamara Lotfi, Víctor M. Montori, Dina Muscat Meng, Holger J. Schünemann, António Vaz Carneiro, Steven Woloshin, Ray Moynihan

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCochrane
FundersBond UniversityDartmouth CollegeAmerican University of BeirutUniversidade de LisboaMcMaster UniversityWorld Health Organization
KeywordsHealth careHarmMedicinePopulationPsychological interventionBusinessEnvironmental healthEconomic growthPolitical scienceNursingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical excess threatens the health of individuals and the sustainability of health systems.[1][2][3]Unnecessary tests, treatments, and diagnoses bring direct harm to people through adverse e ects of interventions,[3][4] psychosocial impacts of labelling,[5] and overwhelming burden of treatment.[6]Overuse and overdiagnosis also consumes scarce resources, leading to underuse and underdiagnosis in other areas, which indirectly harms patients.[7] As healthcare spending grows all over the world, [8] with poor correlation between increased costs and improved health in high-income countries, [9] there is growing recognition that much of that spending is unnecessary.Increased costs of healthcare also draws resources from other societal sectors capable of improving health and wellbeing for the population.[10] By tackling the crisis of medical excess, we can reduce harm and prevent waste, making our health systems more sustainable and more beneficial for patients and societies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.088
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.409
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0880.409
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.713
GPT teacher head0.624
Teacher spread0.089 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207