Update on the Canadian Diabetes Association 2008 clinical practice guidelines.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rates of diabetes are increasing in Canada,1 and family physicians remain the main point of primary care for people with diabetes.2 The challenge for physicians in this context is to design realistic treatment plans and negotiate priorities to maximize health benefits for these patients. This article summarizes recommendations from the Canadian Diabetes Association (CDA) 2008 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). The guidelines are available on-line at www.diabetes.ca/for-professionals/resources/2008-cpg/. This review covers the care of adults with type 2 diabetes and gives particular attention to new recommendations. To assist with readability, grading and evidence levels have been simplified to single letters (eg, grade A recommendation = [A]). Table 1 summarizes the grading system used by the CDA. Table 1 Criteria for assigning levels of evidence and grades to recommendations for 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 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 | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.017 |
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".