The Proliferation of Clinical Practice Guidelines: Professional Development or Medicine-by-Numbers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a medical milieu of extensive research, rapidly proliferating information, and a multitude of potential therapies, there has been an escalating trend toward the development and dissemination of clinical practice guidelines outlining investigative and management protocols for clinical problems. There are substantial benefits to providing educational directives and securing widespread adherence to specific clinical practice standards as a means to ensure a consistent acceptable standard-of-care. On the other hand, the increasing tendency to regard authoritative documents as dogma may hinder ongoing medical progress and facilitate the adoption of a "follow-the-recipe" approach to medical practice. A healthy tension between physician autonomy and recommended practice guidelines needs to be cultivated in primary care as well as in specialty clinical practice. In response to increasing concern surrounding issues of impartiality and commercial influence on the development of practice directives, a mechanism designed to assure integrity and credibility of guidelines is required.
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 | 0.371 | 0.619 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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.
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".