Bibliographic record
Abstract
C linical practice guidelines are consensus statements systematically developed to help physicians, and ultimately patients, make decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances.Over 20 years ago the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) established a joint task force to define the role of specific, noninvasive and invasive procedures in the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease. 1 More specifically, this was initially aimed at establishing the appropriate utilisation of technology in the diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular patients and was initially directed towards the development of guidelines for permanent cardiac pacemaker implantation.Subsequently, task forces have played an important role in developing other guidelines for a host of cardiovascular, medical, and surgical conditions as well as diagnostic procedures.Using rules of evidence and clinical recommendations originally developed by Sackett for the use of antithrombotic agents, a relatively systematic approach (see box) towards the generation of guidelines has emerged. 2 Framed by three levels of evidence, recommendations are categorised as: (1) data derived from multiple randomised clinical trials; (2) data derived from a single randomised trial or non-randomised studies; and (3) where data does not exist but a consensus opinion is developed from a variety of experts.
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 | 0.317 | 0.767 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.031 | 0.032 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.010 |
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".