MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401596042 · doi:10.51731/cjht.2024.947

Canadian Medical Imaging Inventory 2022–2023: Methods

2024· article· en· W4401596042 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
CADTH

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health Technologies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDescriptive statisticsMedical imagingUnit (ring theory)Per capitaJurisdictionRanking (information retrieval)PopulationMedicineMedical physicsGeographyNuclear medicineComputer scienceEnvironmental healthStatisticsPsychologyRadiologyPolitical scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Medical Imaging Inventory (CMII) was created in 2015 to track, compare, and map trends over time related to the availability, distribution, technical specifications, and use of advanced imaging equipment in Canada. This is the fourth iteration of the CMII. The CMII collects data about availability and use of CT, MRI, PET-CT, PET-MRI, SPECT, and SPECT-CT through a survey conducted approximately once every 2 years and details the use of strategies for improving appropriate imaging, enhancing system efficiencies, reducing wait lists, and addressing other systemic challenges. Senior medical imaging decision-makers within health ministries and/or regional health authority located in each province and territory were consulted to validate unit and exam counts for consistency. Data are presented using descriptive summaries and graphs of site-level and jurisdiction-level findings. Canada’s ranking among from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries was reported. The number of units and exams in Canada was projected for the years 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040 based on the per capita values in 2022–2023 and estimated population growth provided by Statistics Canada.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0180.024
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.006

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.351 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health TechnologiesSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207