Guideline Adaptation: An Appealing Alternative to De Novo Guideline Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Letters1 April 2008Guideline Adaptation: An Appealing Alternative to De Novo Guideline DevelopmentValerie A. Palda, MD, MSc, Ian D. Graham, PhD, Dave Davis, MD, Jako Burgers, MD, PhD, Melissa Brouwers, PhD, and Françoise Cluzeau, PhD, On behalf of the AGREE research trustValerie A. Palda, MD, MScFrom the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada., Ian D. Graham, PhDFrom the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada., Dave Davis, MDFrom the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada., Jako Burgers, MD, PhDFrom the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada., Melissa Brouwers, PhDFrom the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada., and Françoise Cluzeau, PhDFrom the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada., On behalf of the AGREE research trustAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-148-7-200804010-00022 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail TO THE EDITOR:We read with interest the ACP guidelines (1) on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. The use of the AGREE instrument to compare the methodological rigor of various guidelines is a meaningful step forward. To our knowledge, it is used regularly only by a few groups, such as the Guidelines Advisory Committee in Ontario (www.gacguidelines.ca), and more widely in Europe by the Belgian Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (www.cebam.be) and others (www.agreetrust.org/links.htm). Using well-developed guidelines as a basis for forming recommendations is an important strategy to improve quality of care and may also lead to efficiencies in ...References1. Qaseem A, Vijan S, Snow V, Cross T, Weiss KB, Owens DK; Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee of the American College of Physicians. Glycemic control and type 2 diabetes mellitus: the optimal hemoglobin A1c targets. A guidance statement from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:417-22. [PMID: 17876024] LinkGoogle Scholar2. AGREE Collaboration. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) Instrument, 2001. London: The AGREE Research Trust; 2001. Accessed at www.agreetrust.org on 14 February 2008. Google Scholar3. AGREE Collaboration. Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12:18-23. [PMID: 12571340] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. AGREE Collaboration. AGREE Next Steps: Continuous Quality Improvement in the Evaluation of Clinical Practice Guidelines. Accessed at www.agreetrust.org/projects.htm on 14 February 2008. Google Scholar5. Fervers B, Burgers JS, Haugh MC, Latreille J, Mlika-Cabanne N, Paquet L, et al. Adaptation of clinical guidelines: literature review and proposition for a framework and procedure. Int J Qual Health Care. 2006;18:167-76. [PMID: 16766601] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: From the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada.Disclosures: None disclosed. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoGlycemic Control and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: The Optimal Hemoglobin A1c Targets. A Guidance Statement from the American College of Physicians Amir Qaseem , Sandeep Vijan , Vincenza Snow , J. Thomas Cross , Kevin B. Weiss , Douglas K. Owens , and Guideline Adaptation: An Appealing Alternative to De Novo Guideline Development Amir Qaseem , Vincenza Snow , and Douglas Owens Guideline Adaptation: An Appealing Alternative to De Novo Guideline Development Beatrice Fervers , Magali Remy-Stockinger , Ian D. Graham , Bernard Burnand , Margaret Harrison , George Browman , and Jean Latreille Metrics 1 April 2008Volume 148, Issue 7Page: 564KeywordsConflicts of interestEvidence based medicineHealth care qualitySystematic reviewsType 2 diabetes ePublished: 1 April 2008 Issue Published: 1 April 2008 CopyrightCopyright © 2008 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF DownloadLoading ...
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 | 0.128 | 0.269 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.007 |
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".