MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comment augmenter l’accès aux outils d’aide à la décision en Suisse romande ?

2023· review· fr· W4318754191 on OpenAlex
Marine Gosteli, Kevin Selby, Christian von Plessen, Thomas Agoritsas, Anik Giguère, Samuel Abreha, Magali Bilien, Marie‐Anne Durand

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue Médicale Suisse · 2023
Typereview
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesContext (archaeology)Computer sciencePsychologyPhilosophyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Models of shared decision making recommend the use of patient decision aids. Hundreds of such aids exist worldwide but scaling up of their use in French-speaking Switzerland requires their translation to French and their adaptation to the clinical context. We review seven sources of tools that we assume relevant for French-speaking Switzerland. A short survey on a selection of three decision aids of general practitioners in the canton of Vaud confirmed their general interest in using such tools. They preferred a limited amount and a simple presentation of information in the decision aids to facilitate integration in clinical practice. Given the complexity of the required translations and adaptations, the medical community should develop a collaborative approach to lift this important task.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.023

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 head0.410
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.069 · 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