MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3204415617 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00673-5

The Lancet Commission on diagnostics: transforming access to diagnostics

2021· review· en· W3204415617 on OpenAlexafffund
Susan Horton, Michael L. Wilson, Rifat Atun, Kristen DeStigter, John Flanigan, Shahin Sayed, Pierrick Adam, Bertha Aguilar, Savvas Andronikou, Catharina Boehme, William Cherniak, Any Cheung, Bernice Dahn, Lluís Donoso-Bach, Tania S. Douglas, Patricia García, Sarwat Hussain, Hari S. Iyer, Mikashmi Kohli, Alain Labrique, Lai‐Meng Looi, John G. Meara, John N. Nkengasong, Madhukar Pai, Kara-Lee Pool, Kaushik Ramaiya, Lee F. Schroeder, Devanshi Shah, Richard Sullivan, Bien-Soo Tan, Kāmini Walia

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityRegional Municipality of WaterlooUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of WaterlooWellcome TrustFondation BrocherKing's College LondonUniversity of OxfordHarvard UniversityBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsPandemicDeclarationDiagnostic testMedicineGlobal healthCommissionScarcityHealth careCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Intensive care medicineEconomic growthPolitical sciencePathologyDiseasePublic healthPediatricsInfectious disease (medical specialty)

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0080.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.005

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 head0.819
GPT teacher head0.640
Teacher spread0.179 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations445
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207