MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998729629 · doi:10.1089/bio.2019.0073

Quality Matters: A Global Discussion in Qatar

2019· article· en· W2998729629 on OpenAlexaff
Ayat Salman, Ronny Baber, Linda Hannigan, Jens K. Habermann, Marianne K. Henderson, Michaela Th. Mayrhofer, Nahla Afifi

Bibliographic record

VenueBiopreservation and Biobanking · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsRoyal Society of CanadaMcGill UniversityRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiobankContext (archaeology)GlobePolitical scienceHealth carePublic relationsMedicineEngineering ethicsGeographyEngineeringBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The International Biobanking Conference titled "Quality Matters: A Global Discussion in Qatar" was held on March 25-27, 2019, in the vibrant city of Doha, Qatar. The 3-day event was organized and hosted by the Qatar Biobank (QBB) and the European, Middle Eastern and African Society for Biopreservation and Biobanking (ESBB), with supporting collaboration from the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories (ISBER) and the Biobanking and BioMolecular Resources Research Infrastructure-European Research Infrastructure Consortium (BBMRI-ERIC). The aim was to highlight the role of biobanking in medical research and advancing health care, as well as improving clinical outcomes. The conference convened experts from across the globe to discuss continuing efforts to harmonize biobanking-related processes to achieve high-quality standards and to support international advancements in medical research for our diverse populations. The scientific agenda drew more than 1000 scientists, researchers, industry experts, and health professionals from five continents. The conference focused on the quality aspect of biobanking through seven sessions over 3 days. Researchers, scientists, and experts from around the world were invited to present, and included special presentations from QBB demonstrating their standing as a leading clinical biobank innovator in support of population and genomic medicine. The 3-day conference concluded with a session on Best Practices and Standards, a topic much in discussion with today's context.

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)0.078
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0780.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.024
Scholarly communication0.0230.019
Open science0.0030.016
Research integrity0.0320.037
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.386
GPT teacher head0.559
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiopreservation and BiobankingSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207