MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993142824 · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111300

The need for clinical judgement in the application of evidence-based medicine

2019· review· en· W2993142824 on OpenAlexaff
J. David Spence

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ evidence-based medicine · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJudgementEvidence-based medicineMedicineIntensive care medicineMEDLINEAlternative medicinePsychotherapistPsychologyEpistemologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has no doubt resulted in great improvements in the practice of medicine. However, there are problems with overly zealous application of EBM, that for some amounts to religious practice. When good evidence exists, it should guide therapeutic and diagnostic choices. However, when evidence is lacking for a given patient, medicine is best practised by extrapolation from available evidence, interpreted in the light of the pathophysiology of the condition under consideration, and effects of various therapies in relation to that pathophysiology. OBJECTIVE: To assess ways in which the unthinking application of EBM can go wrong; these include withholding therapy in patients whose subgroup was excluded from clinical trials, blind acceptance of the numbers, reliance on studies with crucial design flaws and reliance on intention-to-treat analysis when it is not appropriate. STUDY SELECTION: Examples assessed included withholding cholesterol-lowering therapy in the elderly, not using B-vitamin therapy for stroke prevention, not using revascularisation for true renovascular hypertension and avoiding statin therapy for fear of intracerebral haemorrhage. FINDINGS: Zealous application of EBM is often inappropriate. CONCLUSIONS: In some instances, when there is a lack of evidence, or faulty interpretation of the evidence, clinical judgement should inform the application of EBM.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.754
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.904
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7540.904
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.008
Bibliometrics0.0230.013
Science and technology studies0.0090.060
Scholarly communication0.0330.038
Open science0.0190.023
Research integrity0.0420.052
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.972
GPT teacher head0.716
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations26
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ evidence-based medicineSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207