MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312259405 · doi:10.22374/cjgim.v17i1.539

The Top Five Papers of 2020 for General Internists

2022· article· en· W4312259405 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
G. Huard, Olivier St-Laurent

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of General Internal Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-AppalachesCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des LaurentidesCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary scienceHumanitiesMedicinePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Society of Internal Medicine (CSIM) held an annual session to present the “Top 5 papers” influencing the practice of general internists. We reviewed major journal publications from January 2020 to November 2020 to come up with approximately 10 articles we considered practice changing trials for general internists. Out of those papers, we decided to present the five we considered were most relevant by addressing frequent pathologies seen in practice, were methodologically well conducted, and had the potential to sustainably modify practice guidelines. The references to the papers that were not retained are presented in the bibliography section for the reader’s interest. This article aims to present those top five papers of 2020, and to review their strengths and limitations. These articles were also discussed at the CSIM Virtual Educational Activity on October 15, 2020 and in the BaladoCritique podcast. RésuméLa Société canadienne de médecine interne (SCMI) a tenu une séance annuelle pour présenter les « cinq meil-leurs articles » qui influencent la pratique des internistes généralistes. Nous avons examiné les publications des principales revues publiées entre janvier 2020 et novembre 2020 pour en arriver à proposer environ dix articles que nous avons considérés comme des essais pouvant influencer la pratique des internistes généralistes. Parmi ces articles, nous avons décidé d’en présenter cinq qui, selon nous, sont les plus pertinents en abordant des pathologies fréquemment observées dans la pratique, sont bien menés sur le plan de la méthodologie et ont le potentiel de modifier de façon durable les directives de pratique. Les références des articles qui n’ont pas été retenus figurent dans la bibliographie pour l’intérêt du lecteur. Cet article vise à présenter les cinq meilleurs articles de 2020 et à examiner leurs forces et leurs limites. Ces articles ont également fait l’objet de discussions lors de l’activité éducative virtuelle de la SCMI qui s’est tenue le 15 octobre 2020 et dans un épisode du BaladoCritique.

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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.125
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.125
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0270.017
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0260.012
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0430.013

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of General Internal MedicineSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207