MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387473091 · doi:10.1071/ah23159

What have been the clinical outcomes of the Project Synergy/InnoWell digital health platform?

2023· article· en· W4387473091 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey CL Looi, Stephen Allison, Tarun Bastiampillai, Steve Kisely

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Health Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Population healthHealth economicsMental healthDigital healthHealth careReferralProject commissioningMedicinePublic healthBusinessPublishingPublic relationsMedical educationFamily medicineNursingPolitical sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Project Synergy is a digital mental health tool for assessment, referral and follow-up of people with mental health problems. The Australian federal government Department of Health entered an AUD33 million formal funding arrangement with InnoWell, a proprietary company vehicle (primarily the consultancy firm PwC and University of Sydney) to continue development of Project Synergy. This followed an initial federal National Health and Medical Research Council grant of AUD5.5 million over the previous 3 years. However, based on the assessment of peer-reviewed research data, the Project Synergy/InnoWell platform does not seem to have demonstrated clinical outcomes of healthcare value to date.

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)0.155
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.361
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1550.361
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.602
GPT teacher head0.578
Teacher spread0.024 · 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
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Health ReviewSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207