Goede zorg, een kwestie van ervaring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an evidence-based review of the relationship between volume and quality of care, the independent Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement (CBO) concluded that volume appears to be related to outcome for certain surgical procedures (case fatality after pancreatic and oesophageal cancer) and that quality of care might be improved by centralisation. The Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement also identified conditions required for centralisation, particularly acceptance by professionals and hospitals. In the USA, programmes to improve quality ofcare initiated by the Leapfrog Group using volume criteria or, more recently, using 'public reporting' and 'pay for performance' principles have led to improvements in quality. In Canada, the Surgical Oncology programme within the Cancer System Quality Index programme has reduced case fatality following pancreatic resection. The Canadian programme was based not only on volume but also on standards, guidelines, rapid access strategies and publicly available performance assessments. In The Netherlands, the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate is introducing the so-called performance indicators of care. Other initiatives are underway to develop a system with multiple quality criteria as in Canada. These programmes should not be restricted to surgical procedures but should include complex procedures in other specialties as well
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.103 | 0.013 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".