MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Principles of Evidence-Based Medicine

2000· review· en· W2111074322 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel Wiebe

Bibliographic record

VenueCephalalgia · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEvidence-based medicineClinical PracticeMEDLINEAlternative medicineIntensive care medicineNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) integrates individual clinical expertise with the best available external evidence in the care of individual patients. By enabling clinicians to directly appraise and apply current clinical research, EBM deals with the problems of deterioration in clinical performance, information overload, and lag in application of research findings to clinical practice. Thus, EBM is a useful tool to address the problems faced by clinicians attempting to provide optimum, current care for their patients. The rationale for EBM, its principles and application, as well as some limitations, are described here.

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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.016
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0110.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.753
GPT teacher head0.621
Teacher spread0.133 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations26
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCephalalgiaSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207