Bibliographic record
Abstract
I need help.I have become even more confused than usual, something my friends and colleagues would not have thought possible.The source of my confusion?The reason I need assistance?It's the recent publication of multiple, sometimes conflicting treatment guidelines for cardiovascular disease.Like many clinicians, I rely on evidence-based therapeutic guidelines to help me determine how best to treat patients.In recent months, several new guidelines have been published to assist clinicians in treating patients with a variety of cardiovascular diseases (my area of specialty).This should be good news.However, there is also bad news, in the form of multiple guidelines on the same topic (specifically hypertension and reduction in cardiovascular risk) and the fact that many of these guidelines provide differing, even conflicting recommendations.Rather than clarifying the treatment of cardiovascular diseases, these new guidelines have clouded my decision-making process.In the current issue of CJHP, Loewen 1 and Pharand 2 debate, in the Point Counterpoint feature, whether the new American College of Cardiology / American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines for the use of lipid-lowering agents 3 are sound and whether their adoption should be encouraged.Both authors point out the controversial nature of these guidelines and the fact that they differ substantially from the Canadian Cardiovascular Society's guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of dyslipidemia for prevention of cardiovascular disease, 4 released just a few months before the ACC/AHA guidelines.In some ways, the new cholesterol guidelines (which can be characterized more broadly as cardiovascular risk reduction guidelines) are more evidence-based than previous guidelines, because they acknowledge that evidence is lacking for the benefits of achieving specific low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol targets.In addition, they note that the evidence that does exist points more toward efficacy of statin drugs for reduction of morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease.However, abandonment of specific LDL cholesterol targets, as recommended in the ACC/AHA guidelines, is controversial.In addition, the cardiovascular risk levels at which statin drugs are
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 | 0.031 | 0.269 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.054 |
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".