A Mobile Clinical Decision Support Tool for Pediatric Cardiovascular Risk-Reduction Clinical Practice Guidelines: Development and Description
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Widespread application of research findings to improve patient outcomes remains inadequate, and failure to routinely translate research findings into daily clinical practice is a major barrier for the implementation of any evidence-based guideline. Strategies to increase guideline uptake in primary care pediatric practices and to facilitate adherence to recommendations are required. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to operationalize the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Integrated Guidelines for Cardiovascular Health and Risk Reduction in Children and Adolescents into a mobile clinical decision support (CDS) system for healthcare providers, and to describe the process development and outcomes. METHODS: To overcome the difficulty of translating clinical practice guidelines into a computable form that can be used by a CDS system, we used a multilayer framework to convert the evidence synthesis into executable knowledge. We used an iterative process of design, testing, and revision through each step in the translation of the guidelines for use in a CDS tool to support the development of 4 validated modules: an integrated risk assessment; a blood pressure calculator; a body mass index calculator; and a lipid management instrument. RESULTS: The iterative revision process identified several opportunities to improve the CDS tool. Operationalizing the integrated guideline identified numerous areas in which the guideline was vague or incorrect and required more explicit operationalization. Iterative revisions led to workable solutions to problems and understanding of the limitations of the tool. CONCLUSIONS: The process and experiences described provide a model for other mobile CDS systems that translate written clinical practice guidelines into actionable, real-time clinical recommendations.
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 | 0.020 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".