MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3090337341 · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2020.07.083

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF USING MEDICO-ADMINISTRATIVE DATA TO COMPARE THE PRACTICE AND OUTCOMES OF PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION IN QUÉBEC WITH THE REST OF CANADA

2020· article· en· W3090337341 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Laurie Lambert, M. Jolicoeur, Mbathio Diop, Maria Hazelelponi Pare, Nandini Dendukuri, M. Vutcovici-Nicolae, Alexis Matteau, L. Azzi, Mike Benigeri, Peter Bogaty, Normand Racine, Michèle de Guise

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Cardiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous coronary interventionConventional PCIIntervention (counseling)Agency (philosophy)Medical emergencyEmergency medicineFamily medicineNursingMyocardial infarctionCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.158
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.158
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.022
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0070.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.319
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.138 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Cardiology→Same topicClinical practice guidelines implementation→French-language works237,207→