MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016045289 · doi:10.1007/s00134-010-1786-8

A critical appraisal of the quality of critical care pharmacotherapy clinical practice guidelines and their strength of recommendations

2010· review· en· W2016045289 on OpenAlexafffund
Sean K Gorman, Michelle Chung, Richard S Slavik, Kerry Wilbur, Vinay Dhingra

Bibliographic record

VenueIntensive Care Medicine · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalInterior HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusCapital District Health AuthoritySt. Paul's HospitalDalhousie University
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsGuidelineMedicinePharmacotherapyCritical appraisalMEDLINEEvidence-based medicineRigourFamily medicineIntensive care medicineAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.120
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.364
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1200.364
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0140.012
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.544
GPT teacher head0.690
Teacher spread0.145 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainEvaluation
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueIntensive Care MedicineSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207