Clinical Guidelines 2.0: Translation of Tables 2 and 3 and Apendix 1 of Schünemann HJ et al. CMAJ. 2014; 186:E123-42.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical Practice Guidelines are instruments to support decision to improve the quality of clinical care. An expert group from McMaster University (Canada) has developed - from high-quality literature sources - a guidance on the practical steps for their development, dissemination, implementation and evaluation. This is the 1st time anyone seeks to bring together in one document all information regarding the Clinical Practice Guidelines. Due to the interest of this paper, the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine at the University of Lisbon School of Medicine contacted the authors of the article and the journal where it was published (the Canadian Medical Association Journal) in order to translate the most relevant parts of the article (including the practice tables), which was agreed. This guide should be useful to those who, being interested in the development, dissemination and implementation of Clinical Practice Guidelines, want to ensure their intrinsic quality based on relevant and updated evidence.
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.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it