MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010083327 · doi:10.1136/bmj.m213

Revitalising audit and feedback to improve patient care

2020· article· en· W3010083327 on OpenAlexaff
Robbie Foy, Mirek Skrypak, Sarah Alderson, Noah Ivers, Bren McInerney, Jill Stoddart, Jane Ingham, Danny Keenan

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsWomen's College Hospital
FundersAcademy of Medical SciencesNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsAuditPatient careQuality (philosophy)Medical auditComputer scienceMedicineNursingBusinessAccountingEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Audit and feedback are widely used in quality improvement. Robbie Foy and colleagues argue that their full potential to improve patient care could be realised through a more evidence based and imaginative approach

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)0.211
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.411
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2110.411
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0180.016
Open science0.0050.014
Research integrity0.0140.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations164
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207