MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134354125 · doi:10.1016/j.xkme.2021.02.003

Electronic Health Record Portals and Patient-Centered Outcomes in CKD

2021· editorial· en· W3134354125 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Soraya Arzhan, Christos Argyropoulos, Maria‐Eleni Roumelioti

Bibliographic record

VenueKidney Medicine · 2021
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScopusElectronic health recordHealth careMedicinePatient-centered outcomesFamily medicineMEDLINESAFERHealth literacyPatient portalNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With ongoing health care reform efforts in the United States, focus is shifting to the quality of health care delivery.1 Standardized quality indicators have been developed and proposed to measure key components of care across the full continuum of care delivery, including patient-centered outcomes, defined as outcomes meaningful and important to patients and caregivers (patient-centered outcomes).2 In recent years, electronic health record (EHR) measures of patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research have been integrated.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.375 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKidney MedicineSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207