Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Medical Management of Nonhospitalized Ulcerative Colitis: The Patient Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of clinical practice guidelines were recently developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) to provide clinicians with recommendations for the medical management of nonhospitalized ulcerative colitis (UC) patients. These guidelines were developed, reviewed and agreed on by expert clinicians and methodologists. Following the finalization of the guidelines, a group of patients with UC as well as several inflammatory bowel disease clinicians, were brought together for a half-day workshop to provide feedback from the patient perspective. At the workshop, the guideline development process was described and the guidelines were reviewed to ensure comprehension. Patients then had the opportunity to provide their insight to the relevance of the guideline development process and the content of the guidelines as it related to their personal experiences with UC. The patient group believed that, although the new guidelines will be a tremendous resource for the health care provider community, a more 'lay-friendly' version would better facilitate dialogue between patients and their health care practitioners. The importance of the patient/physician relationship is paramount when making decisions regarding treatment plans, in which patient preferences play a key role in determining the most appropriate therapy and dosing regimen, which, in turn, impact the likelihood of adherence to the treatment plan. It was also believed that quality of life issues were not fully addressed in the guidelines. Much could be learned from shared experiences and coping strategies that would empower patients to take charge of their health and become equal partners with their care providers.
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 | 0.017 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".