MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4375858977 · doi:10.32920/22779785.v1

Patient disclosure of medical errors in paediatrics: A systematic literature review

2023· preprint· en· W4375858977 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Donna Koller, J Anneke Rummens, Morgane Le Pouesard, Sherry Espin, Jeremy Friedman, Maitreya Coffey, Noah Kenneally

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Patient Safety Institute
KeywordsScope (computer science)Systematic reviewMedical literatureMedicineSystematic errorPeer reviewPediatricsPsychologyMedical educationMEDLINEPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical errors are common within paediatrics; however, little research has examined the process of disclosing medical errors in paediatric settings. The present systematic review of current research and policy initiatives examined evidence regarding the disclosure of medical errors involving paediatric patients. Peer-reviewed research from a range of scientific journals from the past 10 years is presented, and an overview of Canadian and international policies regarding disclosure in paediatric settings are provided. The purpose of the present review was to scope the existing literature and policy, and to synthesize findings into an integrated and accessible report. Future research priorities and policy implications are then identified.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.115
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.115
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0130.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207