[Preventive activities in primary health care: identifying the agreement among evidence-based guidelines].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this article is to identify the agreement among evidence-based guidelines about recommendations on preventive activities in low risk adults. METHODS: For which we identified, from the 1996 US Task Force on Preventive Services Guide those preventives activities classified like A or B (recommendation in favour of provision) and like D or E (recommendation against provision), excepting those D and E recommendations based on descriptives studies or expert opinions. Both preventive activities aimed at pregnant women and children and those which are not applicable to our context were excluded. Selected preventive services were compared with the range of age, sex and periodicity in which agreement with the recommendations of American College of Physicians and Canadian Task Force on Preventive Services existed. RESULTS: We found the following agreements. Screening activities. In favour: screening for hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, uterine cervix cancer, rubella, visual and hearing impairment and problem drinking. Against: cancer of prostate, lung, bladder and thyroid, and asymptomatic bacteriuria. Counseling activities. In favour: smoking, motor-vehicles injuries, alcohol consumption, unintended pregnancy. Immunizations and quimioprophylaxis. In favour: Vaccines for influenza, tetanus-diphtheria, hepatitis B and measles-mumps-rubella. Postexposure prophylaxis to hepatitis A, hepatitis B, meningococcal, rabies and tetanus. CONCLUSIONS: We see then, that a high degree in agreement among the main guidelines exists; about the preventive activities to perform in Primary Health Services, nevertheless we observed low fulfillment of certain preventive activities in Primary Health Services, different barriers for the accomplishment from these activities were described.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".