P098 The Canadian Task Force On Preventive Health Care: Process For Critical Appraisal Of Externally-Produced Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) was re-established in 2010, with a mandate to produce clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for primary preventive care, based on systematic analysis of scientific evidence. Context In order to increase the range of topics for which the CTFPHC provides guidance, while operating with defined resources, it was necessary to explore alternative dissemination methods. In addition to developing new guidelines and updating existing guidelines, the CTFPHC has developed a process for identifying high quality guidelines produced by other organisations on topics relevant to the CTFPHC’s mandate. Description of Best Practice The process is comprised of 12 steps. When a CPG is identified for appraisal, a literature scan for recently produced guidelines on the same topic by other organisations is conducted. The resultant CPGs are qualitatively assessed based on 5 criteria. The CPG most appropriate for appraisal undergoes AGREEII assessment, followed by development of a summary report that includes a commentary which discusses the strengths, limitations, link between evidence review and CPG and content of the CPG. Lessons for Guideline Developers, Adaptors, Implementers and/or Users Through several iterations, a robust process has been developed, with 3 appraisals completed. Two essential steps were identified: systematic selection of guidelines for appraisal, and engagement of KT experts in selecting product format. Because an appraisal identifies CPGs developed using a standard and rigorous methodology, and does not imply the CTFPHC’s agreement with the recommendations, it is essential that the summary report contain information required by practitioners to ensure a benefit is gained from its dissemination.
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 | 0.640 | 0.827 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.043 | 0.039 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.018 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".