Clinical practice guidelines in dentistry: A Canadian perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical practice guidelines are a pre-appraised source of the best available evidence on a particular clinical topic. They are not designed to replace clinical judgment or usurp clinicians’ autonomy. Rather, the clinician is expected to take into account each patient’s history and preferences, together with their clinical judgment, when applying a guideline. This article outlines the organizational structure and the methodology used by a clinical practice guideline development group. We discuss both advantages and disadvantages of guidelines, and outline some of the present barriers to their implementation. The Canadian Collaboration on Clinical Practice Guidelines in Dentistry produce guidelines on issues of oral health. These guidelines are based on systematic reviews of clinical research and validated through consensus of content experts and clinicians.
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 | 0.067 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".