Recommended Minimum Elements for Transparent Reporting of Multi-Jurisdiction Algorithm Feasibility Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundResearch and surveillance using routinely collected health data rely on algorithms to ascertain disease cases or health measures. Where algorithm validation studies are not possible due to lack of a reference standard, algorithm feasibility studies can be used to create and assess algorithms for use in more than one population or jurisdiction. Publication of the methods used to conduct feasibility studies is critical for transparency and reproducibility. Existing guidelines applicable to feasibility studies, including the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) and REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) statements, may benefit from additional elements to capture aspects particular to multi-jurisdiction algorithm feasibility studies and ensure full reproducibility. MethodsA subcommittee of members from Health Data Research Network (HDRN) Canada’s Algorithms and Harmonized Data Working Group (AHD-WG) reviewed items within the STROBE and RECORD guidelines and compared these to published feasibility studies. Items not contained within STROBE or RECORD but recommended to ensure transparent reporting of feasibility studies were identified. The AHD-WG reviewed and approved these additional recommended elements. ResultsEleven additional recommended elements were identified: one element for the title and abstract, one in the introduction, five in the methods, and four in the results sections. Elements primarily addressed reporting jurisdictional data variabilities, data harmonization methods, and algorithm implementation. SignificanceImplementation of these recommended elements, alongside the RECORD guidelines, is intended to encourage consistent publication of methods that support reproducibility, as well as increase comparability and international collaborations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".