MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246632515 · doi:10.1017/s0266462307070626

Priority setting for health technology assessments: A systematic review of current practical approaches

2007· review· en· W4246632515 on OpenAlexaff
Hussein Z Noorani, Don Husereau, Rhonda Boudreau, Becky Skidmore

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsThe Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of CanadaCanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurrent (fluid)Systematic reviewMEDLINEMedicineSection (typography)Computer scienceManagement scienceData sciencePolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The email address provided for Hussein Z. Noorani in the “Contact Information” section of the above article is incorrect. The correct email address is husseinn@cadth.ca .

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)0.135
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.280
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1350.280
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.012
Bibliometrics0.0230.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.569
GPT teacher head0.636
Teacher spread0.067 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health CareSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207