MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406147493 · doi:10.1017/s026646232400388x

PD156 Scanning The Right Horizons: Does Singapore’s Horizon Scanning Identify And Assess The Relevant Technologies?

2024· article· en· W4406147493 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jaryl Ng, Hong Ju, Zhen Long Ng, Swee Sung Soon, Kwong Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic aneurysm repair treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHorizonNew horizons3d scanningBusinessComputer scienceMathematicsEngineeringArtificial intelligenceAerospace engineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction In Singapore, a horizon scanning (HS) system was established in 2020 by the Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE) to provide early alerts of new and emerging medical technologies (medtechs) for service planning and to warn against the diffusion of low value technologies. This study compared the medtechs identified and assessed by ACE with health technology trends identified by our reference agency. Methods Medtechs identified and assessed by ACE between 2020 and 2023 were analyzed to examine their distribution. Most of the identified medtechs were classified as digital health technologies, precision medicine, robotics, or implants. The prioritized technologies with a completed in-depth assessment were compared with the top 10 health technology trends identified in 2022 by our reference health technology assessment (HTA) agency, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Additionally, feedback from key stakeholders such as clinicians and policymakers on the HS reports was summarized to understand the relevance and value of the HS reports. Results From 2020 to 2023, there were 1,703 medtechs identified from various databases and manufacturer submissions. Digital health technologies were the largest proportion of technologies identified during this period, increasing from 26 percent in 2020 to 31 percent in 2023. Of the 20 evaluated technologies, 70 percent belonged to the top trending medtech fields identified by CADTH. These included artificial intelligence for diagnostics (n=5), point-of-care testing (n=4), companion diagnostics (n=2), wearables (n=2), and remote monitoring (n=1). Initial stakeholder feedback was positive, citing HS reports as being relevant for clinical practice. Some HS reports were also referenced by other policymakers to support regulatory decisions. Conclusions In summary, similarities were observed between medtechs identified and assessed by the ACE HS system and the top trending medtech fields identified by CADTH. Additionally, digital health technologies were the largest proportion of technologies identified by the ACE HS system in 2023. This was substantiated by feedback from our key stakeholders, indicating the relevance and value of the ACE HS work.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health CareSame topicAortic aneurysm repair treatmentsFrench-language works237,207