MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087673588 · doi:10.2482/haigan.45.319

Questionnaire on Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Lung Cancer

2005· article· en· W2087673588 on OpenAlexaff
Yasushi Hoshikawa, Akira Sakurada, Tetsu Sado, Toshiharu Tabata, Chiaki Endo, Yoshinori Okada, Satoshi Suzuki, Yuji Matsumura, Takashi Kondo

Bibliographic record

VenueHaigan · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLung cancerMedicineGeneral surgeryFamily medicineInternal medicineOncologyMedical physicsIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

目的. 「EBMの手法による肺癌診療ガイドライン2003年版」の使用状況およびこれに対する意見を調査することを目的とした. 方法. 日本呼吸器外科学会認定施設, 関連施設, 日本肺癌学会員の在籍する施設, 530施設を対象にアンケート調査を行った. 結果. 260施設, 785名の医師より回答を得た. 回答者の80%以上が本ガイドラインの使用経験があり, その半数以上が「診療方針決定」あるいは「インフォームドコンセント」といった実際の診療の場での使用を目的としていた. 回答者の約70%が本ガイドラインの出版により診療になんらかの影響があったと答えており, 影響の種類の大部分は, 「診療方針が決めやすくなった」あるいは「患者さんに説明しやすくなった」であった. 「今後記載されることが望ましい臨床的疑問点」あるいは「本ガイドラインへの要望」として, 改訂への要請を含む多数の有用な意見が寄せられた. 結論. 本ガイドラインは多数の医師によって利用され, 肺癌診療に寄与していることが示唆された. 一方で改訂への強い要請があることも明らかとなった. 得られた多数の意見が今後のガイドライン改訂に反影されるよう日本肺癌学会に要望したい.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.437
GPT teacher head0.617
Teacher spread0.180 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHaiganSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207