The promise of and problems with evidence‐based medicine for paediatric asthma management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of 'evidence-based medicine' has now been in widespread use in clinical practice for over a decade. There are different types of clinical study, which may provide evidence on which to base clinical decisions, but some are much less robust than others. In making decisions about treatment, one of the highest levels of evidence in primary research is the randomized controlled trial. This study design has been used in clinical research for over 50 years. Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trial are scientific studies that review, critically appraise and, where appropriate, aggregate results from a number of different randomized controlled trials. They are increasingly being used throughout health care to provide guidance about treatment. Under the auspices of The Cochrane Collaboration, systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are being conducted across the whole of health care. One of the most active areas for this work is within the field of asthma and clinicians are now able to access a large number of different systematic reviews on The Cochrane Library. If used appropriately, they can aid the clinician in making decisions about individual patients and provide a sound evidence base from which clinical guidelines can be developed.
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 | 0.127 | 0.240 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".