MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008887062 · doi:10.1016/s2352-4642(20)30039-0

Neonatal risk adjustment in low-resource settings

2020· letter· en· W3008887062 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shoo K. Lee, Qi Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Child & Adolescent Health · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialIntensive care medicineVulnerability (computing)PediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Risk adjustment is the process of sorting patients into different risk groups to permit fair comparisons of outcomes.1 This is important because although randomisation in clinical trials evenly distributes risk among the comparison groups, this is not possible when comparing real-world outcomes among different hospitals or groups of patients. Consequently, risk adjustment is an indispensable tool for real-world comparisons of outcomes. These comparisons are essential for quality improvement because they permit valid examination of variations in outcomes.

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)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.251
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.251
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Child & Adolescent HealthSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207