MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Study on new medical technology access index system for tertiary public hospitals

2019· article· en· W3029879738 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xia Lin, Lanting Lyu, Dun Jin, Teng Yong-jun, Na Li, Fei Bai

Bibliographic record

VenueZhonghua yiyuan guanli zazhi · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicQuality and Safety in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelphi methodDelphiHealth technologyIndex (typography)Consistency (knowledge bases)Public accessChinaPublic hospitalMedicineOperations managementBusinessMedical emergencyComputer scienceNursingGeographyEngineeringLibrary sciencePolitical scienceHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To establish a scientific and comprehensive evaluation index for new technology access in tertiary public hospital, so as to provide a tool for new technology access management system and scientific basis for decision-making. Methods This study collected data from eight provinces nationwide including 30 tertiary public hospital based new technology access application, catalogued dimensions of application. It also referred to the European Union, Denmark, Canada and other countries in forming the hospital health technology assessment form, along with two rounds of Delphi expert consultation. Results The new medical technology access index system of China′s tertiary public hospitals was preliminarily formed, including 5 first-level indexes and 24 level-2 indexes. Conclusions The two rounds of expert advice have a high degree of consistency, indicating that the indicators are in line with the actual situation of hospital management in China, yet with rooms of constant improvement in practice. Key words: Hospitals, public; New technology; Access; Delphi expert consultation; Index system

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZhonghua yiyuan guanli zazhiSame topicQuality and Safety in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207