MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316095980 · doi:10.51731/cjht.2023.540

Identifying Overused Lab Tests in Hospital Settings: A Delphi Study

2023· article· en· W4316095980 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
CADTH

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health Technologies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Blood ServicesCanadian Association of Emergency Physicians
KeywordsMedicineMedical laboratoryTest (biology)Medical diagnosisHealth careNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unnecessary lab testing may lead to inaccurate diagnoses, inappropriate treatment or further testing, and increased strain on our health care system, and can expose patients to potential harm. To identify lab tests that could be considered by Choosing Wisely Canada’s Using Labs Wisely program, we convened a panel of experts that included physicians, medical laboratory professionals, patients, and decision-makers from across Canada. Our objective was to prioritize a list of high-volume laboratory tests that are often ordered unnecessarily in hospital settings. Through a consensus-generating process, the expert panel prioritized 7 lab tests as candidates for reduction or elimination in hospital settings. These were 25-hydroxy vitamin D testing, vitamin B12 testing, thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) testing, free triiodothyronine (FT3) and free thyroxine (FT4) testing, international normalized ratio (INR) testing, and amylase testing.

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)0.082
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0820.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.524
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.019 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health TechnologiesSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207