MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023911871 · doi:10.1111/1742-6723.13517

Review article: A primer for clinical researchers in the emergency department: Part XI. Inertia before investigation: Pre‐test probability in emergency medicine

2020· review· en· W3023911871 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Pellatt, Eve Purdy, Gerben Keijzers

Bibliographic record

VenueEmergency Medicine Australasia · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTest (biology)Clinical decision makingEmergency departmentMedical physicsMedical emergencyFamily medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this series, we address research topics in emergency medicine. Rational clinical decision making is based on knowledge of the disease prevalence, clinical assessment features and test characteristics such as sensitivity and specificity. The concept of pre-test probability is important as it will allow the clinician and patient decide together if a 'test threshold' or 'treatment threshold' has been reached, or if further investigations are required to make such a decision. This research primer uses three case scenarios to explore these concepts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.102
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.102
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.000

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 head0.854
GPT teacher head0.664
Teacher spread0.190 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmergency Medicine AustralasiaSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207