MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

HYPERTENSIVES USERS OF HEALTH WEB PORTALS: WHO ARE THEY? PROTOCOL AND PRELIMINARY RESULTS

2023· article· en· W4379799129 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joany Rousseau Bédard, Lyne Cloutier, André Michaud

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCompetence (human resources)The InternetPatient portalHealth informationWorld Wide WebProtocol (science)Internet privacyMedical educationHealth careAlternative medicineComputer sciencePsychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: In Canada, 1 in 4 adults has hypertension. Many of them, concerned about their health, often turn to Internet to seek information. In order to meet this information need, the Quebec Society of Vascular Sciences has created a web portal. The information presented has been developed by profesionals but formulated as to be understand easily by lay people. However, literature still offer little to no data on the characteristics of users of these health portals. The purpose of the study is to characterize hypertensives who use health web portals. Design and method: This descriptive cross-sectional study is part of an ongoing multicenter project. This current study includes 250 participants with vascular disorders and aims to characterize all users of a health web portal. In the course of this sub-study, only individuals with a diagnosis of hypertension (n > 125) are included for analysis. Results: A validated and tested self-administered electronic questionnaire was developed with the Technology Acceptance Model 3 and will be presented in the communication. This questionnaire also explores personal characteristics, motivation and digital competence. The protocol and the preliminary results describing the characteristics of individuals with hypertension who use a health web portal, including motivations for use and digital competence will also be included. Conclusions: The results will help guide arterial hypertension societies in the development of health information Web portals.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.010

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207