McMaster Premium Literature Service (PLUS): an evidence-based medicine information service delivered on the Web.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) attempts to narrow the gap between knowledge and practice, but ready access to evidence-based resources remains a challenge to practicing physicians. OBJECTIVE: To describe a new, EBM information delivery service, its trial design, and baseline data. METHODS: McMaster PLUS (Premium Literature Service), composed of a continuously updated database and web-based interface, delivers scientifically rigorous and clinically relevant research literature matched to individual physicians' clinical interests. A cluster randomized controlled trial is currently underway, comparing 2 versions of the PLUS system. RESULTS: As of Feb 2005, the PLUS database contained over 5700 scientifically sound, clinically relevant articles, published from 2001 to present. 68% of articles have full text links. Over 200 physicians in Northern Ontario have been randomized to one of 2 PLUS interfaces. CONCLUSION: McMaster PLUS has been designed to aid physicians to home in on high quality research that is highly relevant and important to their own clinical practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.189 | 0.020 |
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".