Bibliographic record
Abstract
Guideline implementation Guideline implementation methods Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are “systemically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances.” To help physicians access CPGs and adopt evidence-based best practice, the CMA Infobase was created by the Canadian Medical Association in 1994 and has since grown into the most comprehensive online source of Canadian CPGs with 1200 CPGs included. A user survey was conducted online during April 1-30, 2009. The questionnaire included 11 questions about user demographics, purpose and frequency of visits, satisfaction, desirable features, and experience with CPG development and implementation. A total of 512 users responded. Overall, physicians were highly satisfied (83%). The top two reasons for visits were continuing education (80%) and acquiring information for managing a clinical case (63%). Clinical pearls – short, practical summaries of CPGs (90%), integrated accredited CME (81%), and e-mail alert of new CPGs (81%) were among the highest rated features, followed by peer review of CPGs (66%). Physicians' enthusiasm about clinical pearls concurs with research findings that lack of user-friendly format of CPGs might be one of the barriers to CPG adherence. Creating CPG summaries with clear, succinct, and actionable recommendations might help physicians adopt evidence-based decision-making in the patient care delivery process. Enhanced educational material such as online learning modules of CPGs might help physicians assimilate research evidence. Quality rating of CPGs based on critical appraisal interests physicians given the growing number of CPGs of varied quality.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".