Consensus (Convergence of Opinion on Recommendations and Evidence [CORE]) Versus Systematic (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE]) Approach to Development of Guidelines for Community-acquired Pneumonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the Cambridge English dictionary, guidelines are “information intended to advise people on how something should be done or what something should be.” Guidelines providing advice on the management of a variety of diseases have been available for years and are generally viewed as helpful to clinicians and, at the very least, provide a touchstone to a common approach to specific medical issues. Reviewing the community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) literature from the 1950s to the 1990s, it’s clear that there was no standard or coordinated approach to investigation or treatment, and various and at times unusual therapeutic options were suggested...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.231 | 0.636 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.014 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".