MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138296455 · doi:10.1111/epi.13217

Developing clinical practice guidelines for epilepsy: A report from the <scp>ILAE</scp> Epilepsy Guidelines Working Group

2015· article· en· W2138296455 on OpenAlexafffund
Khara M. Sauro, Samuel Wiebe, Emilio Perucca, Jacqueline A. French, Colin Dunkley, Alejandro de Marinis, Martin Kirkpatrick, Nathalie Jetté

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersUCB PharmaJohnson and JohnsonEpilepsy FoundationEisaiSK Life ScienceEpilepsiatutkimussäätiöUpsher-SmithViropharmaGW PharmaceuticalsVertex PharmaceuticalsUniversity of CalgaryAcorda TherapeuticsWorld Health OrganizationGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsExcellenceGuidelineHealth careScope (computer science)MedicineWorking groupBest practiceQuality (philosophy)EpilepsyMedical educationFamily medicinePolitical scienceComputer sciencePsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) contain evidence-based recommendations to guide clinical care, policy development, and quality of care improvement. A recent systematic review of epilepsy guidelines identified considerable variability in the quality of available guidelines. Although excellent frameworks for CPG development exist, processes are not followed uniformly internationally, and resources to develop CPGs may be limited in certain settings. An International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) working group was charged with proposing methodology to guide the development of future epilepsy-specific CPGs. A comprehensive literature search (1985-2014) identified articles related to CPG development and handbooks. Guideline handbooks were included if they were publicly available, and if their methodology had been used to develop CPGs. The working group's expertise also informed the creation of methodologies and processes to develop future CPGs for the ILAE. Five handbooks from North America (American Academy of Neurology), Europe (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network & National Institute for Health and Care Excellence), Australia (National Health and Medical Research Council), World Health Organization (WHO), and additional references were identified to produce evidence-based, consensus-driven methodology for development of epilepsy-specific CPGs. Key components of CPG development include the following: identifying the topic and defining the scope; establishing a working group; identifying and evaluating the evidence; formulating recommendations and determining strength of recommendations; obtaining peer reviews; dissemination, implementation, and auditing; and updating and retiring the CPG. A practical handbook and toolkit was developed. The resulting CPG development toolkit should facilitate the development of high-quality ILAE CPGs to improve the care of persons with epilepsy.

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)0.178
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.348
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1780.348
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0240.024
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0060.011
Research integrity0.0080.014
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 head0.613
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.046 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations38
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsiaSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207