MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606822949 · doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezx089

A benchmarking project on the quality of previous guidelines about the management of malignant pleural effusion from the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS) Pleural Diseases Working Group

2017· article· en· W2606822949 on OpenAlexaff
Luca Bertolaccini, Benedetta Bedetti, Alessandro Brunelli, Katerina Marinova, Federico Raveglia, Gaetano Rocco, Yaron Shargall, Piergiorgio Solli, Gonzálo Varela, Kostas Papagiannopoulos, Jarosław Kużdżał, Gilbert Massard, Enrico Ruffini, Pierre‐Emmanuel Falcoz, Carlos Martínez-Barenys, Isabelle Opitz, Hasan Fevzi Batırel, Alper Toker, Marco Scarci

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPleural and Pulmonary Diseases
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmarkingMedicineGuidelineMalignant pleural effusionEuropean unionCLARITYScale (ratio)PopulationMultinational corporationFamily medicineMedical educationPleural effusionSurgeryPathologyEnvironmental healthMarketingPolitical scienceBusinessGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: In the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS) survey about management of malignant pleural effusions (MPE), 56% of respondents are not informed of any relevant clinical guidelines and 52%, who are aware of the existence of guidelines, declared that they are in need of updating or revision. The ESTS Pleural Diseases Working Group developed a benchmarking project on quality of previous guidelines on the management of MPE. METHODS: The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument was used to assess each guideline. Each item was scored on a 7-point scale. Scores for each domain were calculated. Economic data for the nations which have issued the guidelines were collected from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development health statistics database. RESULTS: Six guidelines fitted the inclusion criteria and were assessed. Five out of 6 guidelines were produced by a multinational collaboration. Observers would recommend only 2 guidelines with minimal modification. Two areas that received the best score were clarity of presentation and scope and purpose (objectives and health questions target population). The applicability of guideline domain had the lowest score. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that clarity of presentation, international guidelines and publication through medical journal were related to improved scores. A strong correlation was observed between the measures of economic status. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of guidelines assessed by the AGREE II criteria was found to be extremely variable. Guidelines achieving higher AGREE II scores were more likely to come from the European Union with the direct involvement of scientific societies in their development. It was also recognized that some fundamental unanswered questions remain about the management of MPE.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.078
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0780.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.139
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic SurgerySame topicPleural and Pulmonary DiseasesFrench-language works237,207