Using the Grade Approach to Support the Development of Recommendations for Public Health Interventions in Radiation Emergencies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Health Organization (WHO) guideline development policy requires that WHO guidelines be developed in a manner that is transparent and based on all available evidences, which must be synthesised and formally assessed for quality. To fulfil this requirement, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations was applied when developing the WHO recommendations on public health interventions in radiation emergencies. The guideline development group (GDG) formulated 10 PICO (P: population; I: intervention; C: comparator; O: outcomes) questions to guide the development of recommendations on response interventions during the early/intermediate and late emergency phases and on risk communications for mitigating psycho-social impact of radiation emergencies. For each PICO question, an extensive evidence search and systematic review was conducted. The GDG then formulated the recommendations using the evidence to recommendation (E-2-R) decision-making matrix and evaluated the strength of each recommendation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it