ASSESSING INNOVATIVE ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGIES (ATS) FOR OLDER ADULTS: AN EXECUTIVE SPONSOR'S PERSPECTIVE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The BC Ministry of Health (BC MoH)’s Health Technology Assessment unit is part of the Partnerships and Innovation Division. Our interest in this project concerns the status of ATs and the health technology assessment (HTA) process. The role of AT implementation as a key feature of the potential for new ATs to maximize health impact for older adults is something the Ministry sees as critical to meet the goal of enhancing healthy ageing and sustaining independence and autonomy. Methods: From the beginning of the project, as Executive Sponsor, the Partnerships and Innovation Division helped to co-create the research program and played a key role in developing partnerships with health authorities and other stakeholders. With monthly meetings and several other research activities, the project has provided multiple opportunities for genuine policy engagement. Results: The results so far have seen the project extend the scope of its partnerships with key stakeholders in BC. The Ministry was on a local reference group of knowledge users for a rapid realist review of participatory co-design, and Mr. Saini is a co-author on a publication based on that work. The project received additional funding from the BC MoH, and recently the Ministry collaborated on a successful University of Victoria Research Acceleration Fund grant application. Conclusions: The BC MoH sees this as a key implementation science project, which will provide guidance to the HTA process, as it inevitably confronts increased demand for the public provision of ATs for older adults, particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged groups.
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 | 0.118 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".