Database quality assessment in research in paramedicine: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The paramedic practice environment presents unique challenges to data documentation and access, as well as linkage to other parts of the healthcare system. Variable or unknown data quality can influence the validity of research in paramedicine. A number of database quality assessment (DQA) frameworks have been developed and used to evaluate data quality in other areas of healthcare. The extent these or other DQA practices have been applied to paramedic research is not known. Accordingly, this scoping review aims to describe the range, extent and nature of DQA practices within research in paramedicine. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will follow established methods for the conduct (Johanna Briggs Institute; Arksey and O'Malley) and reporting (Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews) of scoping reviews. In consultation with a professional librarian, a search strategy was developed representing the applicable population, concept and context. This strategy will be applied to MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine), Embase (Elsevier), Scopus (Elsevier) and CINAHL (EBSCO) to identify studies published from 2011 through 2021 that assess paramedic data quality as a stated goal. Studies will be included if they report quantitative results of DQA using data that relate primarily to the paramedic practice environment. Protocols, commentaries, case studies, interviews, simulations and experimental data-processing techniques will be excluded. No restrictions will be placed on language. Study selection will be performed by two reviewers, with a third available to resolve conflicts. Data will be extracted from included studies using a data-charting form piloted and iteratively revised based on studies known to be relevant. Results will be summarised in a chart of study characteristics, DQA-specific outcomes and key findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required. Results will be submitted to relevant conferences and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: 10.17605/OSF.IO/Z287T.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.225 | 0.182 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.073 | 0.023 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".