MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392431607 · doi:10.17140/plmoj-1-e001

Medical Error Disclosure: A Point of View

2016· article· en· W4392431607 on OpenAlexaff
Jawahar Kalra

Bibliographic record

VenuePathology and Laboratory Medicine – Open Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanRoyal University Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint (geometry)PsychologyComputer scienceMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In any health care process, adverse events resulting from errors are inevitable.1 A number of studies have estimated the rate of adverse events, in hospital patients, varied from 3.7% to 16.6%.2-6 Disclosure of an adverse event is an important element in managing the consequences of a medical and clinical error.7 Although, attempts have been made to minimize adverse events and medical errors, a dichotomy has developed between medical errors occurring and the disclosure of these errors by medical professionals.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.031
Scholarly communication0.0140.023
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0440.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.398 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePathology and Laboratory Medicine – Open JournalSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207