MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Findings from Evaluations of the Benefits of Diagnostic Imaging Systems

2009· article· en· W74258357 on OpenAlexaffabout
Simon Hagens, Nancy Kraetschmer, Craig Savege

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsCanada Health Infoway
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMedical imagingMedical physicsMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada Health Infoway and its partners in the provinces and territories have made significant investments in diagnostic imaging (DI) systems across Canada. Infoway's DI Investment Program is to implement storage for diagnostic digital images so that clinicians can view images regardless of where they are stored. Specifically, Infoway is investing in Picture Archiving and Communications Systems (PACS), which are those systems with the modern digital archiving capabilities used by DI systems.eHealth implementations in Canada are responsible for demonstrating the value of eHealth investments to users and stakeholders and driving benefit optimization. Canada has a rich set of results from British Columbia, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador due to early Infoway investments in DI systems. The positive evaluation results are encouraging but they indicate that continued effort and investment are required to fully realize the benefits. This paper discusses findings from evaluation studies, the pan-Canadian aggregation study, and possibilities for benefit optimization from investments made in the Electronic Health Record (EHR).

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.149
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.149
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207