The next step in surgical quality improvement: outcome situational awareness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary: A similar theme unites proposed solutions for stagnant improvement in outcomes and rising health care costs: eliminate unnecessary variation in the care of surgical patients. While large quality-improvement projects like the Americal College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program have historically led to improved patient outcomes at the hospital level, the next step in surgical quality improvement is to eliminate unnecessary variation at the level of the individual surgeon. Critical examination of individualized clinical, financial and patient-reported outcomes — outcome situational awareness — along with peer group comparison will help surgeons to identify variation in patient care. We are piloting an interactive software platform at our institution to provide information on individualized clinical, financial and patient-reported outcomes in real time through automatic data population of a central REDCap database. These individualized data along with peer group comparison allow surgeons to objectively determine areas of potential improvement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".