Financial conflict of interest among clinical practice guideline-producing organisations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Competing interests between biomedical industry objectives and the public good raise concerns that some clinical practice guidelines sponsored by industry may not serve patients or the public as they should.1,2 GPs and other guideline users are likely unaware of the extent of organisational financial conflict of interest (FCOI) due to industry sponsorship of guideline-producing organisations. Understanding how guidelines are susceptible to bias when such organisational FCOI is present and potential mitigating strategies helps critically appraise guidelines that are encountered in practice. Ioannidis has warned guideline users that some guideline-producing societies are ‘behemoth financial enterprises’ .3 The American Heart Association receives almost 200 million USD annually from corporate sponsors, and the European Society of Cardiologists receives over 45 million Euros annually, 77% of their 60 million Euro budget.3 Despite this, little attention has been paid to the extent to which guideline producers are dependent on industry funds and how infrequently this is disclosed. A 2016 study found that financial relationships between guideline producers and biomedical companies were disclosed in only 1% of 290 guidelines, even though …
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads 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".