MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405269069 · doi:10.1016/s2542-5196(24)00301-2

Engaging clinicians to reduce carbon-intensive, unnecessary tests and procedures

2024· article· en· W4405269069 on OpenAlexaff
Wendy Levinson, William K. Silverstein

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Planetary Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntensive care medicineMEDLINEMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Up to 30% of ordered tests and treatments do not add value and can even harm patients.1–3 It stands to reason that eliminating the use of these unnecessary tests and treatments can reduce a component of health care's greenhouse gas emissions, as every test and treatment has a carbon footprint.4 Generally speaking, physicians and other health-care professionals (hereafter referred to as clinicians) do not know how to change their daily practice to mitigate progression of the climate crisis.5,6 In this Comment, we describe a campaign led by national professional societies to develop specific and actionable recommendations that clinicians can implement in their daily practice to decrease their carbon footprint through elimination of carbon-intensive, unnecessary tests and treatments.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.556
GPT teacher head0.555
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Planetary HealthSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207