MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385560403 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2023.27146

A Clinical Consensus Approach to Developing a New Funding Model for Radiation Services in Ontario

2023· article· en· W4385560403 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Suzanna Apostolovski, Farzana McCallum, Carina Simniceanu, Julie Kraus, Eric Gutierrez, Brian Liszewski, Emma Esselink, Jean‐Pierre Bissonnette, Margaret Hart, Michael Brundage, Padraig Warde, Jason Pantarotto

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsSystems, Applications & Products in Data Processing (Canada)Institute for Work & HealthPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreMental Health Research CanadaCARE CanadaQueen's UniversityCancer Care Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)Equity (law)Best practiceBusinessQuality (philosophy)Quality managementProcess managementMedicinePolitical scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2021, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) introduced a quality-based procedure model for the funding of radiation treatment (RT) in Ontario. This model ties reimbursement to patient care activities, ensuring equity and transparency in funding. Over 200 RT interprofessionals (oncologists, therapists and physicists) participated on 22 expert panels to establish or identify 288 evidence-based RT protocols and 672 quality expectations (QEs) to optimally deliver RT, which eventually led to the micro-costing of all protocols. Iterative review is required to ensure updated techniques and identify evolving standards of care, thereby providing the highest quality of RT care to Ontarians.

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)0.260
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.173
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2600.173
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.008
Science and technology studies0.0200.018
Scholarly communication0.0180.011
Open science0.0110.018
Research integrity0.0100.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207