MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319063490 · doi:10.1016/j.kint.2022.12.026

P32: a sex- and gender-sensitive model for evidence-based precision medicine: from knowledge generation to implementation in the field of kidney transplantation

2023· article· en· W4319063490 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ruth Sapir‐Pichhadze, Sabine Oertelt‐Prigione

Bibliographic record

VenueKidney International · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersGenome AlbertaGenome British ColumbiaBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungZonMwCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGenome Canada
KeywordsField (mathematics)Kidney transplantationTransplantationMedicineIntensive care medicineComputer scienceInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Precision medicine emerged as a promising approach to identify suitable interventions for individual patients with a particular health concern and at various time points. Technology can enable the acquisition of increasing volumes of clinical and "omics" data at the individual and population levels and support advanced clinical decision making. However, to keep pace with evolving societal realities and developments, it is important to systematically include sex- and gender-specific considerations in the research process, from the acquisition of knowledge to implementation. Building on the foundations of evidence-based medicine and existing precision medicine frameworks, we propose a novel evidence-based precision medicine framework in the form of the P3 2 model , which considers individual sex-related (predictive [P1], preventive [P2], and personalized [P3] medicine) and gender-related (participatory [P4], psychosocial [P5], and percipient [P6] medicine) domains and their intersection with ethnicity, geography, and other demographic and social variables, in addition to population, community, and public dimensions (population-informed [P7], partnered with community [P8], and public-engaging [P9] medicine, respectively). Through its ability to contextualize and reflect on societal realities and developments, our model is expected to promote consideration of diversity, equity, and inclusion principles and, thus, enrich science, increase reproducibility of research, and ensure its social impact.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.014
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKidney InternationalSame topicSex and Gender in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207