MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995395350 · doi:10.1089/thy.2019.0486

A Survey of American Thyroid Association Members Regarding the 2015 Adult Thyroid Nodule and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer Clinical Practice Guidelines

2019· article· en· W2995395350 on OpenAlex
Anna M. Sawka, Anna R. Gagliardi, Megan R. Haymart, Cord Sturgeon, Victor Bernet, Kelly Hoff, Peter Angelos, Juan P. Brito, Bryan R. Haugen, Brian W. Kim, Peter Kopp, Susan J. Mandel, Douglas S. Ross, Mary H. Samuels, David Sarne, Catherine F. Sinclair, Jacqueline Jonklaas

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThyroid · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThyroid cancerFamily medicineClinical PracticeThyroidThyroid nodulesCross-sectional studyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The 2015 American Thyroid Association (ATA) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on management of thyroid nodules (TNs) and differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) in adults were developed to inform clinicians, patients, researchers, and health policy makers about the best available evidence, and its limitations, relating to management of these conditions. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey of ATA members' perspectives of these CPGs, using a standardized survey (Clinician Guidelines Determinant Questionnaire) developed by the Guidelines International Network. A survey link was electronically mailed to members in February of 2019, with reminders sent to nonrespondents 2 and 5 weeks later. Data were descriptively summarized, after excluding missing responses. Results: The overall response rate was 19.8% (348/1761). The effective response rate was 20.2% (348/1720), after excluding a recently deceased member and individuals who had either invalid e-mail addresses or whose e-mails were returned. Of the respondents, 37.9% (132/348) were female, 60.4% (209/346) were endocrinologists, 27.5% (95/346) were surgeons, and 3.5% (12/346) were nuclear medicine specialists. The majority of respondents (71.9%; 250/348) were at a mid- or advanced-career level, and more than half were in academia (57.5%; 195/339). The majority (69.8%; 243/348) practiced in North America. The vast majority of respondents indicated that the CPGs explained the underlying evidence (92.3%; 298/323) and 92.9% (300/323) agreed or strongly agreed with the content. Most respondents stated that they regularly used the CPGs in their practice (83.0%; 268/323). Most respondents (83.0%; 268/323) also agreed or strongly agreed that the recommendations were easy to incorporate in their practice. The most popular CPG format was an electronic desktop file (78.8%; 252/320). Shorter more frequent CPGs were favored by 55.0% (176/320) of respondents, and longer traditional CPGs were favored by 39.7% (127/320). Conclusions: The clinical content and evidence explanations in the adult TN and DTC CPGs are widely accepted and applied among ATA survey respondents. Future ATA CPG updates need to be optimized to best meet users' preferences regarding format, frequency, and length.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.345 · 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