MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4379052475 · doi:10.3390/curroncol30060408

Progress toward Health System Readiness for Genome-Based Testing in Canada

2023· review· en· W4379052475 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Don Husereau, Eva García Villalba, Vivek Muthu, Michael Mengel, Craig Ivany, Lotte Steuten, Daryl S. Spinner, Brandon S. Sheffield, Stephen Yip, Philip Jacobs, Terrence Sullivan, Larry Arshoff

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British ColumbiaProvincial Health Services AuthorityWilliam Osler Health SystemUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Ottawa
FundersPfizer CanadaThermo Fisher ScientificAstraZeneca CanadaAmgen CanadaAmgenPfizerAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyEli Lilly CanadaGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsHealth careContext (archaeology)MedicineKnowledge managementOnboardingTest (biology)PsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(1) Background: Genomic medicine harbors the real potential to improve the health and healthcare journey of patients, care provider experiences, and improve the health system efficiency-even reducing healthcare costs. There is expected to be an exponential growth in medically necessary new genome-based tests and test approaches in the coming years. Testing can also create scientific research and commercial opportunities beyond healthcare decision making. The purpose of this research is to generate a better understanding of Canada's state of readiness for genomic medicine, and to provide some insights for other healthcare systems. (2) Methods: A mixed-methods approach of a review of the literature and key informant interviews with a purposive sample of experts was used. The health system readiness was assessed using a previously published set of conditions. (3) Results: Canada has created some of the established conditions, but further action needs to be taken to improve the state of readiness for genome-based medicine. The important gaps to be filled are the need for linked information systems and data integration; evaluative processes that are timely and transparent; navigational tools for care providers; dedicated funding to facilitate rapid onboarding and support test development and proficiency testing; and broader engagement with innovation stakeholders beyond care providers and patients. These findings highlight the role of the organizational context, social influence, and other factors that are known to affect the diffusion of innovation within health systems.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.877
GPT teacher head0.595
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 designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Oncology→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→