MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Risk Assessment in Clinical Decision Making

2014· other· en· W3023307954 on OpenAlexaff
Harry S. Shannon, Alejandro R. Jadad

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmRisk communicationRisk assessmentRisk perceptionRisk analysis (engineering)Intervention (counseling)Actuarial scienceEstimationClinical decision makingPerceptionPsychologyComputer scienceMedicineBusinessSocial psychologyIntensive care medicineEngineeringComputer securityPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article discusses the technical definition of risk and focuses on risks to patients in a clinical setting, particularly of events involving physical harm due to therapeutic intervention. It is shown that risk estimation involves both calculation of the risks and benefits involved, but also includes elements of risk communication, perception, and acceptance.

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)0.087
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.176
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0870.176
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.012
Scholarly communication0.0140.009
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.431 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference OnlineSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207