MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6987256875

Should âsmart phonesâ be used for patient photography?

2016· article· en· W6987256875 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed Central · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Imaging in Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidentialityPhotographyMobile phonePatient confidentialitySmart phoneDigital photographyPhone
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile technology has found its way into numerous applications, especially in the developed world. The photographic and video capability of ‘smart phones’, in particular, are central to contemporary communications and much of social media, and are increasingly being used in medical fields in which capture and transfer of digital images and information have become mainstream. However, this has led to controversy regarding issues of consent, storage, confidentiality and eventual use of this information. This survey-based study queried members of the Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons and aimed to determine the prevalence of smart phone use for photography in plastic surgery, and whether guidelines and/or regulation should be required.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.232 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed CentralSame topicDigital Imaging in MedicineFrench-language works237,207