Development of the Canadian Spinal Cord Injury Best Practice (Can-SCIP) Guideline: Methods and overview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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: = 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: . 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".