Roadmap for Publishing Clinical Practice Guidelines in PTJ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Development and implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are the focus of policy for many professional bodies. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) defines clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) as “statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefits and harms of alternative care options.”1 The American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) stimulates the development of CPGs by providing training and financial support for their development. To be eligible for that support, the CPG must be produced with the active involvement and sponsorship of an APTA section.2 PTJ has published practice guidelines (eg, the Ottawa Panel Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines3–8); however, PTJ did not have a specific policy regarding the review and publication of guidelines. During the PTJ Editorial Board meeting at APTA Combined Sections Meeting in February, the Editorial Board considered options for publishing CPGs in a structured and systematic way, with the aim of stimulating the dissemination and use of CPGs. Several examples of such initiatives exist. Within the field of physical therapy, the Orthopedic Section of APTA publishes guidelines in collaboration with the Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT). Examples from other professions include the American College of Physicians (ACP) and Annals of Internal Medicine and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery and the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (JAAOS). In this editorial, we describe PTJ's roadmap for the publication of CPGs.
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 | 0.173 | 0.469 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.042 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.105 | 0.076 |
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".