MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212933358 · doi:10.1080/10790268.2021.1953312

Development of the Canadian Spinal Cord Injury Best Practice (Can-SCIP) Guideline: Methods and overview

2021· article· en· W3212933358 on OpenAlexaffabout
Eleni Patsakos, Mark Bayley, Ailene Kua, Christiana L. Cheng, Janice J. Eng, Chester Ho, Vanessa K. Noonan, Matthew Querée, B. Catharine Craven

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Spinal Cord Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsGF Strong Rehabilitation CentreUniversity of AlbertaPraxis Spinal Cord InstituteUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation InstituteInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineMedicineBest practiceHealth careSpinal cord injuryEvidence-based practiceAutonomic dysreflexiaSystematic reviewMEDLINEAlternative medicineSpinal cordPsychiatryManagementPolitical sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a life-altering injury that leads to a complex constellation of changes in an individual’s sensory, motor, and autonomic function which is largely determined by the level and severity of cord impairment. Available SCI-specific clinical practice guidelines (CPG) address specific impairments, health conditions or a segment of the care continuum, however, fail to address all the important clinical questions arising throughout an individual’s care journey. To address this gap, an interprofessional panel of experts in SCI convened to develop the Canadian Spinal Cord Injury Best Practice (Can-SCIP) Guideline. This article provides an overview of the methods underpinning the Can-SCIP Guideline process.Methods The Can-SCIP Guideline was developed using the Guidelines Adaptation Cycle. A comprehensive search for existing SCI-specific CPGs was conducted. The quality of eligible CPGs was evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. An expert panel (n = 52) convened, and groups of relevant experts met to review and recommend adoption or refinement of existing recommendations or develop new recommendations based on evidence from systematic reviews conducted by the Spinal Cord Injury Research Evidence (SCIRE) team. The expert panel voted to approve selected recommendations using an online survey tool.Results The Can-SCIP Guideline includes 585 total recommendations from 41 guidelines, 96 recommendations that pertain to the Components of the Ideal SCI Care System section, and 489 recommendations that pertain to the Management of Secondary Health Conditions section. Most recommendations (n = 281, 48%) were adopted from existing guidelines without revision, 215 (36.8%) recommendations were revised for application in a Canadian context, and 89 recommendations (15.2%) were created de novo.Conclusion The Can-SCIP Guideline is the first living comprehensive guideline for adults with SCI in Canada across the care continuum.

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)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.137
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.137
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0150.016
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Spinal Cord MedicineSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207