MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003588057 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2020.26091

Making Informed CHOICES: The Launch of a “Big Data” Pragmatic Trial to Improve Cholesterol Management and Prevent Heart Disease in Ontario

2020· article· en· W3003588057 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Laura Legere, Anna Chu, Mohammed K. Rashid, Atul Sivaswamy, Tara O’Neill, Christine Marquez, Richelle Baddeliyanage, Sharon E. Straus, Jacob A. Udell

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersInstitute of Circulatory and Respiratory HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSanofiOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareAstraZenecaHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaAmgen
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMedicineDisease managementCluster (spacecraft)Cluster randomised controlled trialHigh cholesterolStatinCholesterolMedical emergencyDiseaseFamily medicineGerontologySurgeryInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cholesterol-lowering statin medications are a safe and effective therapy to lower cholesterol and reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. Yet physician prescribing patterns and patient adherence remain suboptimal in Canada and the United States, often due to pervasive misconceptions. The Community Heart Outcomes Improvement and Cholesterol Education Study (CHOICES) is a pragmatic, registry-based, cluster randomized controlled trial that aims to improve cholesterol management through appropriate statin use in adults and to ultimately reduce cardiovascular events in high-risk communities across Ontario. The trial uses an innovative, multicomponent intervention and implementation approach that includes audit and feedback reports for family physicians and educational materials and tools for patients.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207