P055 Does the Canadian Task force on Preventive Health Care Meet the Institute of Medicine Standards in Guideline Development?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background There are a plethora of guideline development groups in operation, each with its own methods for summarising evidence and processes for developing recommendations, which can leave consumers with questions about which guidelines to follow. In 2011 the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a set of standards for developing trustworthy systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). These standards address the structure, process, reporting and final products associated with evidence-based CPGs. The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) was recently re-established with a mandate to develop clinical practice guidelines for primary care practitioners based on a systematic assessment of scientific evidence. Objectives To compare the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care’s methods with the standards outlined in the IOM. Methods The methods of the CTFPHC were compared to the IOM standards for both systematic reviews and CPGs and to the methods of other international guideline producers. Results The CTFPHC methods are consistent with those of the IOM and international guideline development groups. Some differences include how patient and consumer input is incorporated into guidelines, the review of documents, and the final recommendation statements, the degree to which documents are publicly available and the processes for dissemination and knowledge translation. Discussion New processes put in place to address the differences between CTFPHC methods and IOM standards will be explored. Implications for Guideline Developers/Users Comparing the methods of guideline development groups to the IOM standards may provide users with a way to ascertain potential areas for enhancement of their CPG development process.
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 | 0.337 | 0.726 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".