MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312187825 · doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.1060179

Addressing quality and safety in anatomic pathology in low- and middle-income countries

2022· article· en· W4312187825 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen J. Smith, Amrik Eadara, Vinita Parkash

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Health and Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLow and middle income countriesQuality assuranceBusinessQuality (philosophy)Quality managementPatient safetyWork (physics)Health careMedicineProcess managementRisk analysis (engineering)Operations managementDeveloping countryMarketingEconomic growthEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The World Health Organization (WHO) has created a sustainable development goal of reducing preventable mortality from cancer in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) by 30% by 2030. Central to achieving this goal is the creation and maintenance of quality anatomic pathology services (APS). Within the last decade, quality assurance programs and patient safety measures have become a major focus of research for upper middle- and high-income countries (UMHICs), which has led to marked documented improvement in the quality of services provided by laboratories, as well as a decrease in patient safety events. We propose that as APS are developed in LMICs, the lessons learned by UMHICs are necessary to incorporate to produce quality and safe services toward obtaining the aforementioned goal. Furthermore, data suggests that Quality Improvement work requires change at the macrosystems and microsystems levels to achieve these goals. Here, we propose five "microsystems" strategies for professional organizations, healthcare institutions in LMICs and UMHICs that would accelerate quality improvement programs/systems implementation in APS in LMICs.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MedicineSame topicGlobal Health and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207