MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246835603 · doi:10.1177/229255031101900412

The Opportunities and Obstacles in Developing a Vascular Birthmark Database for Clinical and Research Use

2011· article· en· W4246835603 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plastic Surgery · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Coding and Health Information
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDatabaseBirthmarkIdentification (biology)Data administrationMultidisciplinary approachMedicineDatabase designComputer sciencePopulationData scienceDatabase schema

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION Databases are useful tools in clinical settings. The authors review the benefits and challenges associated with the development and implementation of an efficient electronic database for the multidisciplinary Vascular Birthmark Clinic at the Alberta Children's Hospital, Calgary, Alberta. METHODS The content and structure of the database were designed using the technical expertise of a data analyst from the Calgary Health Region. Relevant clinical and demographic data fields were included with the goal of documenting ongoing care of individual patients, and facilitating future epidemiological studies of this patient population. After completion of this database, 10 challenges encountered during development were retrospectively identified. Practical solutions for these challenges are presented. RESULTS The challenges identified during the database development process included: identification of relevant data fields; balancing simplicity and user-friendliness with complexity and comprehensive data storage; database expertise versus clinical expertise; software platform selection; linkage of data from the previous spreadsheet to a new data management system; ethics approval for the development of the database and its utilization for research studies; ensuring privacy and limited access to the database; integration of digital photographs into the database; adoption of the database by support staff in the clinic; and maintaining up-to-date entries in the database. CONCLUSIONS There are several challenges involved in the development of a useful and efficient clinical database. Awareness of these potential obstacles, in advance, may simplify the development of clinical databases by others in various surgical settings.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.853
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.331 · 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