MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6943996800 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/u7zbd

Digital health tools used to triage musculoskeletal pain in primary, urgent and emergency settings: a scoping review

2024· other· en· W6943996800 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriageCINAHLPsycINFOMEDLINEDigital healthContext (archaeology)Cochrane Library

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We aim to identify digital health tools that can triage musculoskeletal pain in adults across primary, urgent, or emergency care settings. Musculoskeletal conditions are one of the largest contributors to the global burden of disease. Digital health tools can support triage of non-emergent pain, such as musculoskeletal pain, and help patients and clinicians direct the right care at the right time. The digital health research field is growing rapidly, and a summary of digital tools to triage musculoskeletal pain is needed. This knowledge will guide efforts to help patients and clinicians navigate the health system and potentially decrease the burden of musculoskeletal pain in emergency departments. We will conduct a systematic search of the MEDLINE (OVID), CINAHL (Ebsco), PsycINFO (Ebsco), Embase (OVID), Cochrane Library, Web of Science Core Collection, OpenGrey, GoogleScholar, arXiv.org, and medRxiv.org databases. In addition, targeted searches will be performed to identify grey literature. The review will report information, including but not limited to: demographic characteristics of study and participants, catalogue of digital tools to triage musculoskeletal pain, context of triage tool, and if reported, the development and performance (i.e., accuracy) of the tools.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0250.020
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueOpen Science FrameworkFrench-language works237,207