MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900802696 · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2017-003923

Use of GRADE in Australian clinical practice guidelines: a methodological review protocol

2018· review· en· W2900802696 on OpenAlexaff
Mafalda M. Dias, Zachary Munn, Kylie Porritt, Cătălin Tufănaru, Cindy Stern, Edoardo Aromataris, Rick Wiechula, Sue Brennan, Holger J. Schünemann

Bibliographic record

VenueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpactCochrane
FundersNational Health and Medical Research Council
KeywordsGrading (engineering)Clinical PracticeProtocol (science)MedicineManagement scienceMedical educationEngineering ethicsMedical physicsPsychologyAlternative medicineFamily medicineEngineeringPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RESEARCH QUESTION/OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this methodological review is to determine whether and to what extent GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology has been and is currently being used in Australian clinical practice guidelines.

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)0.089
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.202
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0890.202
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.884
GPT teacher head0.719
Teacher spread0.165 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation ReportsSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207