MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Expertise: No Longer a Sine Qua Non for Guideline Authors?

2017· letter· en· W2628181525 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Franz H. Messerli, Louis Hofstetter, Enrico Agabiti‐Rosei, Michel Burnier, W.J. Elliott, Stanley S. Franklin, Tomasz Grodzicki, Kazuomi Kario, Sverre E. Kjeldsen, John B. Kostis, Stéphane Laurent, Frans H. H. Leenen, Per Lund‐Johansen, Giuseppe Mancia, Krzysztof Narkiewicz, Vasilios Papademetriou, Gianfranco Parati, Neil R Poulter, Josep Redón, Stefano F. Rimoldi, Luís M. Ruilope, Ernesto L. Schiffrin, Roland E. Schmieder, Allan B. Schwartz, Peter Sever, James R. Sowers, Jan A. Staessen, Ji‐Guang Wang, Michael A. Weber, Bryan Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueHypertension · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAllerganMedtronic JapanMitsubishi Tanabe Pharma CorporationServierOtsuka PharmaceuticalRelypsaAstellas PharmaBayer YakuhinTeijin PharmaDaiichi-SankyoReCor MedicalNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchEA Pharma Co., Ltd.Boehringer Ingelheim JapanGovernment of CanadaBoston Scientific CorporationAmgenPfizerEli Lilly and CompanyDaiichi Sankyo EuropeOmron Healthcare
KeywordsSine qua nonMedicineGuidelineGerontologyHumanitiesLibrary sciencePhilosophyPolitical scienceLawPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several sets of guidelines have been published recently and more are in the works. The very recent American College of Physicians/American Academy of Family Practitioners guidelines were put together by a set of authors and consultants without any expertise in the topic under discussion, that is, hypertension. Although we are not maintaining that all guidelines should be written exclusively by experts, complete lack of expertise among guideline authors is not acceptable.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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 venueHypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207