MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A user guide to the American Society of Hematology clinical practice guidelines

2020· article· en· W3024882174 on OpenAlexaff
Ariel Izcovich, Adam Cuker, Robert A. Kunkle, Ignacio Neumann, Julie A. Panepinto, Menaka Pai, Matthew D. Seftel, Matthew C. Cheung, Richard Lottenberg, Michael Byrne, Robert M. Plovnick, Deirdra R. Terrell, Jennifer Holter‐Chakrabarty, Benjamin Djulbegović, Lisa K. Hicks, Wojtek Wiercioch, Robby Nieuwlaat, Holger J. Schünemann

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Advances · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsImpactCochraneSt. Michael's HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsTerminologyPresentation (obstetrics)MedicineHematologyClinical PracticeMEDLINEIntensive care medicineInternal medicineMedical educationFamily medicinePolitical scienceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since November 2018, Blood Advances has published American Society of Hematology (ASH) clinical practice guidelines on venous thromboembolism, immune thrombocytopenia, and sickle cell disease. More ASH guidelines on these and other topics are forthcoming. These guidelines have been developed using consistent processes, methods, terminology, and presentation formats. In this article, we describe how patients, clinicians, policymakers, researchers, and others may use ASH guidelines and the many related derivates by describing how to interpret information and how to apply it to clinical decision-making. Also, by exploring how these documents are developed, we aim to clarify their limitations and possible inappropriate usage.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.260
GPT teacher head0.575
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood AdvancesSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207