MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148589782 · doi:10.1370/afm.1654

Do Clinical Guidelines Still Make Sense? No

2014· article· en· W2148589782 on OpenAlexaff
Ross Upshur

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Family Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical PracticeQuality (philosophy)Nursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The last 25 years have seen a dramatic increase in clinical practice guidelines, as well as considerable efforts to establish quality standards, and the growth of an extensive research literature on the uptake and use (or lack thereof) of clinical practice guidelines in routine clinical practice.

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)0.150
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.503
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1500.503
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.030
Scholarly communication0.0170.039
Open science0.0070.008
Research integrity0.0210.034
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.007

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 head0.812
GPT teacher head0.643
Teacher spread0.169 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainEvaluation
GenreCommentary

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

Citations75
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of Family MedicineSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207