Approaches to identify scenarios for data science implementations within healthcare settings: recommendations based on experiences at multiple academic institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To describe successful and unsuccessful approaches to identify scenarios for data science implementations within healthcare settings and to provide recommendations for future scenario identification procedures. Materials and methods: Representatives from seven Toronto academic healthcare institutions participated in a one-day workshop. Each institution was asked to provide an introduction to their clinical data science program and to provide an example of a successful and unsuccessful approach to scenario identification at their institution. Using content analysis, common observations were summarized. Results: Observations were coalesced to idea generation and value proposition, prioritization, approval and champions. Successful experiences included promoting a portfolio of ideas, articulating value proposition, ensuring alignment with organization priorities, ensuring approvers can adjudicate feasibility and identifying champions willing to take ownership over the projects. Conclusion: Based on academic healthcare data science program experiences, we provided recommendations for approaches to identify scenarios for data science implementations within healthcare settings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.211 | 0.276 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".