MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148949075 · doi:10.1136/bmj.a744

Use of GRADE grid to reach decisions on clinical practice guidelines when consensus is elusive

2008· article· en· W2148949075 on OpenAlexaff
Roman Jaeschke, Gordon Guyatt, Phillip Dellinger, Holger J. Schünemann, Mitchell Levy, Regina Kunz, Susan L. Norris, Julian Bion

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsensus conferenceGridClinical PracticeComputer scienceManagement sciencePolitical scienceMedicineEngineeringFamily medicineGeographyLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The large and diverse nature of guideline committees can make consensus difficult. <b>Roman Jaeschke and colleagues</b> describe a simple technique for clarifying opinion

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)0.109
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.408
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1090.408
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0170.010
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0060.009
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1020.021

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 head0.441
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.082 · 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
DomainMethods
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

Citations565
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207