MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4256606454 · doi:10.2196/31548

Peer Review of “Finding Potential Adverse Events in the Unstructured Text of Electronic Health Care Records: Development of the Shakespeare Method”

2021· article· en· W4256606454 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIRx Med · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth recordsPeer reviewHealth carePsychologyInformation retrievalData scienceMedicineComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper [1] described the "Shakespeare method," which was designed to discover associations between adverse events (AEs) caused by blood transfusion from unstructured electronic health record (EHR) notes.The authors applied this method on the MIMIC-III data set and seemed to be able to find transfusion AEs (TAEs) and potential TAEs (PTAEs) that were unknown when those EHR notes were developed.

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)0.069
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.369
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0690.369
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.006
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0760.042

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.406 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIRx MedSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207