MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896524052 · doi:10.1089/thy.2018.0070

American Thyroid Association Guidelines and Statements: Past, Present, and Future

2018· article· en· W2896524052 on OpenAlexaff
Anna M. Sawka, Sally E. Carty, Bryan R. Haugen, James V. Hennessey, Peter Kopp, Elizabeth N. Pearce, Julie Ann Sosa, Ralph P. Tufano, Jacqueline Jonklaas

Bibliographic record

VenueThyroid · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitationTask forceTransparency (behavior)Executive summaryPolitical sciencePublic relationsMedicineLawBusinessPublic administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The American Thyroid Association (ATA) is continually striving to improve the quality of its publications. The ATA Guidelines Policies and Procedures Task Force was active during 2017. It recently recommended convening a formal standing committee to review and update policies and procedures for the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and Statements on an ongoing basis. OBJECTIVE: This statement reviews the history of official ATA publications and discusses the challenges and findings identified by the Task Force. We also wish to present our "work in progress" and propose future directions for the new ATA Guidelines and Statements Committee (ATA GSC). METHODS: Our Task Force reviewed the publication record of the ATA with respect to CPGs. We also reviewed existing ATA policies for CPGs and other official statements, examined policies of other organizations, solicited input from external experts and organizations, and convened five conference calls and two in-person meetings. RESULTS: The ATA has a rich history of developing official publications that have been influential based on download and citation records as well as changes in practice trends. Key future issues to be further addressed by the ATA GSC include the following: (i) striving to improve the methodologic rigor of development of CPGs while balancing considerations of feasibility and timeliness and the role of transparently communicated expert opinion; (ii) formalizing a framework and process for development of new Statements; (iii) increasing stringency and transparency of management of competing interests of individuals being considered for CPG/Statement panel membership; (iv) encouraging consideration of equity and diversity in CPG/Statement development group composition; (v) increasing relevant stakeholder representation (including patient representatives) in development of CPGs/Statements; and (vi) expanding future guideline implementation strategies. CONCLUSIONS: As shown by the completed literature search, the ATA has a long history of producing CPGs and Statements with global impact on informing clinical management, education, and research in thyroid diseases. The ATA remains committed to a process of continual improvement of its publications and to meeting stakeholder information needs. Based on the work of our Task Force, we have identified many elements that are needed to achieve this goal and areas of challenge for our new committee.

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)0.085
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.209
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0850.209
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.014
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0090.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.011

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.360 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations35
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThyroidSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207