MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173297735 · doi:10.1002/lrh2.10280

Developing a rapid evidence response to<scp>COVID</scp>‐19: The collaborative approach of Saskatchewan, Canada

2021· article· en· W3173297735 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gary Groot, Susan E. Baer, Andreea Badea, Michelle Dalidowicz, Maryam Yasinian, Anum Ali, Tracey Carr, Bruce Reeder

Bibliographic record

VenueLearning Health Systems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsGovernment of SaskatchewanSaskatchewan Health Quality CouncilSaskatchewan Ministry of AgricultureUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatchewan Health Authority
FundersSaskatchewan Health Research Foundation
KeywordsGeneral partnershipPublic relationsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Political scienceBusinessPublic healthHealth carePandemicProfiling (computer programming)MedicineNursingComputer scienceInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The COVID-19 Evidence Support Team (CEST) was a provincial initiative that combined the support of policymakers, researchers, and clinical practitioners to initiate a new learning health cycle (LHS) in response to the pandemic. The primary aim of CEST was to produce and sustain the best available COVID-19 evidence to facilitate decision-making in Saskatchewan, Canada. To achieve this objective, four provincial organizations partnered to establish a single, data-driven system. Methods: The CEST partnership was driven by COVID-19 questions from Emergency Operational Committee (EOC) of the Saskatchewan Health Authority. CEST included three processes: (a) clarifying the nature and priority of COVID-19 policy and clinical questions; (b) providing Rapid Reviews (RRR) and Evidence Search Reports (ESR); and (c) seeking the requestors' evaluation of the product. A web-based repository, including a dashboard and database, was designed to house ESRs and RRRs and offered a common platform for clinicians, academics, leaders, and policymakers to find COVID-19 evidence. Results: In CEST's first year, 114 clinical and policy questions have been posed resulting in 135 ESRs and 108 RRRs. While most questions (41.3%) originated with the EOC, several other teams were assembled to address a myriad of questions related to areas such as long-term care, public health and prevention, infectious diseases, personal protective equipment, vulnerable populations, and Indigenous health. Initial challenges were mobilization of diverse partners and teams, remote work, lack of public access, and quality of emerging COVID-19 literature. Current challenges indicate the need for institutional commitment for CEST sustainability. Despite these challenges, the CEST provided the Saskatchewan LHS with a template for successful collaboration. Conclusions: The urgency of COVID-19 pandemic and the implementation of the CEST served to catalyze collaboration between different levels of a Saskatchewan LHS.

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)0.228
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.260
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2280.260
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0140.015
Science and technology studies0.0160.011
Scholarly communication0.0240.006
Open science0.0100.028
Research integrity0.0080.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.004

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 head0.451
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.131 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLearning Health SystemsSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207