MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362605514 · doi:10.51952/9781447365112.ch003

The role of NICE in the evidence-based health system

2023· book-chapter· en· W4362605514 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nick Timmins

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Press eBooks · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Coding and Health Information
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNiceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In early October 1999, Sir Richard Sykes, the chairman of Glaxo Wellcome, then Britain’s biggest pharmaceutical company, stormed into 10 Downing Street. He was incandescent. A body that most people had not heard of – the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) – in its very first decision had just recommended that the National Health Service in England should not prescribe what the company had expected to be its next big money-spinner. A treatment for influenza, known as Relenza. This was the first major challenge of the budding What Works movement – when NICE, which came to be known as the first What Works Centre – first refused to support a drug set to be popular and profitable. In this chapter, Nick Timmins recounts this story, as well as a broader picture of how NICE was created, established itself, and how it has evolved between then and now.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.489
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.001 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicy Press eBooksSame topicMedical Coding and Health InformationFrench-language works237,207