062PS The Role of Rapid Systematic Reviews for Development of Rapid Guidance in Health Care and Health Policy Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Conducting systematic evidence reviews on a set of focused clinical questions has become one of the “gold standards” for development of “trustworthy” clinical guidance. Time, resource constraints, and other issues, however, may require the application of more pragmatic means for reviewing the evidence to support rapid guidance development. Target Group, Suggested Audience Developers of guidance for health systems and health policy settings. Objectives/Goals To actively engage panellists and session participants in a discussion of the role of rapid systematic reviews in the development of rapid guidance, the strengths and limitations of rapid vs. full/complete systematic review methods, and lessons learned from recent national and international rapid review and guidance efforts within health care and health policy settings. Description of Session and Speaker Topics Chantelle Garritty will discuss OHRI’s rapid review work with the Ottawa Hospital Technology Assessment Programme, and the Cochrane Collaboration’s new “Cochrane Response” rapid review methodology; Catherine Gallagher will present results of a pilot Cochrane Response rapid review within the GMU Health System, and organisation of an international group to develop rapid review standards; Holger Schunemann will present examples of rapid systematic reviews and their value in rapid guidance development; and Susan Norris will present on the WHO’s development of rapid guidance in the setting of urgent public health needs. Marguerite Koster will moderate the discussion.
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 | 0.644 | 0.838 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.026 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".