MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

[Risk Management to Shanghai Medical Device Registrants].

2018· article· en· W3024360417 on OpenAlexaff
Minliang Zhou, Ming Meng

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutions123 Certification (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical deviceChinaOrder (exchange)Risk managementBusinessOperations managementMedical equipmentRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringMedicineNursingPolitical scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Nov.2017, Shanghai CFDA began to pilot medical device registrant project in China. This project is a bold attempt to medical device supervision. And it's quite helpful for promoting innovation and development of medical devices in Shanghai. However, the "R&D-Production-separate" characteristic enhances risks in medical device life-cycle. It also brings more challenges to registrant on medical device risk management. In order to protect interested parties fully and effectively, we will discuss why registrants need to manage risk and what they should pay attention to in this article.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0150.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.006

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207