MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039571796 · doi:10.36518/2689-0216.1094

Improving the Quality and Design of Retrospective Clinical Outcome Studies that Utilize Electronic Health Records

2020· article· en· W3039571796 on OpenAlexaff
Oliwier Dziadkowiec, Jeffery Durbin, Vignesh Jayaraman Muralidharan, Megan Novak, Brendon Cornett

Bibliographic record

VenueHCA Healthcare Journal of Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsContinental (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth recordsQuality (philosophy)Outcome (game theory)Retrospective cohort studyElectronic recordsMedical recordMedicineComputer scienceHealth careDatabaseInternal medicinePolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Description Electronic health records (EHRs) are an excellent source for secondary data analysis. Studies based on EHR-derived data, if designed properly, can answer previously unanswerable clinical research questions. In this paper we will highlight the benefits of large retrospective studies from secondary sources such as EHRs, examine retrospective cohort and case-control study design challenges, as well as methodological and statistical adjustment that can be made to overcome some of the inherent design limitations, in order to increase the generalizability, validity and reliability of the results obtained from these studies.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.533
GPT teacher head0.598
Teacher spread0.065 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations32
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHCA Healthcare Journal of MedicineSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207