American College of Rheumatology Guidance for the Management of Rheumatic Disease in Adult Patients During the COVID‐19 Pandemic: Version 3
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the management of adult rheumatic disease in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: A task force, including 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America, was convened. Clinical questions were collated, and an evidence report was rapidly generated and disseminated. Questions and drafted statements were reviewed and assessed using a modified Delphi process. This included asynchronous anonymous voting by email and webinars with the entire panel. Task force members voted on agreement with draft statements using a 1-9-point numerical scoring system, and consensus was determined to be low, moderate, or high based on the dispersion of votes. For approval, median votes were required to meet predefined levels of agreement (median values of 7-9, 4-6, and 1-3 defined as agreement, uncertainty, or disagreement, respectively) with either moderate or high levels of consensus. RESULTS: Draft guidance statements approved by the task force have been combined to form final guidance. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements are provided to promote optimal care during the current pandemic. However, given the low level of available evidence and the rapidly evolving literature, this guidance is presented as a "living document," and future updates are anticipated.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it