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 OpenAlexaff
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

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

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

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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations21
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThyroidSame topicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207