Informing Your Practice with Reviews Published by the Cochrane Back Review Group: Conservative Interventions for Neck and Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In her editorial in the winter 2009 issue of Physiotherapy Canada, Allison Francis outlined a number of online resources that are available to physiotherapists in their quest to find current evidence to inform their practice. 1One of the resources listed as ''by subscription only'' was The Cochrane Library (http://www.thecochra-nelibrary.com).This valuable resource was freely available to all Canadians with Internet access to the end of 2009, as a pilot project organized by the Canadian Cochrane Centre and the Canadian Health Libraries Association.Negotiations for ongoing funding were still in progress at the time of writing; however, abstracts and plain-language summaries continue to be free to all readers.We would like to take this opportunity to give you a brief overview of one the Review Groups that publish and maintain Cochrane Reviews that can help to inform your practice.The Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) is one of 52 Review Groups that produce and maintain systematic reviews on the effects of health care.The goal is to provide the most current information to inform clinical decisions at the individual, institutional, and policy levels.The scope of the CBRG is primary and secondary prevention and treatment of neck and back pain and other spinal disorders, excluding inflammatory diseases and fractures.The CBRG is hosted by the Institute for Work & Health (http://www.iwh.on.ca), an independent, notfor-profit research organization located in Toronto, Ontario, whose mission is to conduct and share research with workers, organized labour, employers, clinicians, and policy makers to promote, protect, and improve the health of working people.The CBRG also receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health.
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 | 0.082 | 0.495 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.057 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.017 |
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".