MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312019365 · doi:10.1055/a-1966-0104

Versorgungsnahe Daten für Versorgungsanalysen – Teil 3 des Manuals

2022· article· de· W4312019365 on OpenAlexaff
Christof Veit, Thomas Bierbaum, Simone Wesselmann, Stephanie Stock, Claus-Dieter Heidecke, Christian Apfelbacher, Stefan Benz, Karsten Dreinhöfer, Michael Hauptmann, Falk Hoffmann, Wolfgang Hoffmann, Thomas Kaiser, Monika Klinkhammer‐Schalke, Michael Koller, Tanja Kostuj, Olaf Ortmann, Jochen Schmitt, Holger J. Schünemann, Max Geraedts

Bibliographic record

VenueDas Gesundheitswesen · 2022
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsCochrane
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careHRHISEquity (law)NursingHealth care qualityQuality (philosophy)International healthMedicineHealth policyBusinessPublic healthPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analyses of health and health care (hereafter referred to as "health care analyses") usually aim to make transparent the structures, processes, results and interrelationships of health care and to record the degree to which health care systems and their actors have achieved their goals. Health care-related data are an indispensable source of data for many health care analyses. A prerequisite for the examination of a degree of goal achievement is first of all an agreement on those goals that are to be achieved by the system and its substructures, as well as the identification of the determinants of the achievement of the objectives. Primarily it must be examined how safely, effectively and patient-centred systems, facilities and service providers are operating. It also addresses issues of need, accessibility, utilisation, timeliness, appropriateness, patient safety, coordination, continuity, and health economic efficiency and equity of health care. The results of health care include system services (outputs), on the one hand, and results (outcomes), on the other, whereby the results (patient-reported outcomes) and experiences (patient-reported experiences) reported are of particular importance. Health care analyses answer basic questions of health care research: who does what, when, how, why and with which resources and effects in routine health care. Health care analyses thus provide the necessary findings and key figures to further develop health care in order to improve the quality of health care. The applications range from capacity analyses to following innovations up to the concept of regional and supra-regional monitoring of the quality of care given to the population. Given the progress of digitalisation in Health Care, direct data from the care processes will be increasingly available for health care research. This can support care givers significantly if the findings of the studies are applied precisely and correctly within an adequate methodological frame. This can lead to measurable improved health care quality for patients. Data from the process of health care provision have a high potential. Their use needs the same scientific scrutiny as in all other scientific studies.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0130.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1790.188

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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDas GesundheitswesenSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207