MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393132317 · doi:10.1016/j.ssmhs.2024.100010

Actioning the Learning Health System: An applied framework for integrating research into health systems

2024· article· en· W4393132317 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSSM - Health Systems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoTrillium Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)Health careHealth equityComputer sciencePopulation healthHealthcare systemKnowledge managementQuality (philosophy)Management scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Process managementEngineeringMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health systems across the world experience pervasive gaps in the speed with which high quality evidence is generated, implemented and refined. A Learning Health System (LHS) approach that blends research with health care operations is to eliminate or reduce delays. This paper builds on existing LHS frameworks to deepen our practical understanding of the research-health systems operations interface and to provide actionable insights on how to realize a LHS in practice. We present an LHS action framework that describes how research and health care operations are linked and enacted in a comprehensive LHS approach to advance population health and health equity. Health systems seeking to implement an LHS approach can use this framework to identify capabilities necessary to enact the learning elements, including key questions and methods, to ensure a systematic approach to learning and achieving equity-centered quadruple aim metrics.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.098
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0980.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0200.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.742
GPT teacher head0.741
Teacher spread0.001 · 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