MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079065919 · doi:10.1378/chest.129.1.174

Grading Strength of Recommendations and Quality of Evidence in Clinical Guidelines

2006· review· en· W2079065919 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon Guyatt, David D. Gutterman, Michael H. Baumann, Doreen Addrizzo‐Harris, Elaine M. Hylek, Barbara Phillips, Gary E. Raskob, Sandra Zelman Lewis, Holger J. Schünemann

Bibliographic record

VenueCHEST Journal · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrading (engineering)MedicineGuidelineQuality of evidenceEvidence-based medicineRisk analysis (engineering)Medical physicsSurgeryRandomized controlled trialAlternative 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)0.441
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1200.441
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.017
Bibliometrics0.0330.019
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.919
GPT teacher head0.708
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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

Citations1,226
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCHEST JournalSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207