Combining relevance assignment with quality of the evidence to support guideline development.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical practice guidelines are used to disseminate best practice to clinicians. Successful guidelines depend on literature that is both relevant to the questions posed and based on high quality research in accordance with evidence-based medicine. Meeting these standards requires extensive manual review. We describe a system that combines symbolic semantic processing with a statistical method for selecting both relevant and high quality studies. We focused on a cardiovascular risk factor guideline, and the overall performance of the system was 56% recall, 91% precision (F0.5-score 0.81). If quality of the evidence is not taken into account, performance drops to 62% recall, 79% precision (F0.5-score 0.75). We suggest that this system can potentially improve the efficiency of the literature review process in guideline development.
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 | 0.083 | 0.405 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.057 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".