MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223485503 · doi:10.1111/jebm.12466

An extension of the RIGHT statement for introductions and interpretations of clinical practice guidelines: RIGHT for INT

2022· review· en· W4223485503 on OpenAlexaff
Qi Zhou, Dan Xing, Qinyuan Li, Jingyi Zhang, Xufei Luo, Nan Yang, Xiaoqin Wang, Kehu Yang, Jinhui Tian, Hui Li, Bo Li, Yujia Cai, Yinghui Jin, Lanting Lv, Feng Sun, Shuxian Shang, Beibei Yuan, Li Jiang, Bin Ma, Xiuxia Li, Yuanzhi Yuan, Lei Wu, Bin Wang, Lei Jiang, Zhiwen Wang, Yaolong Chen, Liang Du

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evidence-Based Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistGuidelineBrainstormingMedical educationDelphi methodDelphiPsychologyMedicineFamily medicineComputer sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the extension of the RIGHT Statement for INTroductions and INTerpretations of Clinical Practice Guidelines (RIGHT for INT) is to promote the development of comprehensive and clear articles that introduce and interpret clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: The RIGHT for INT checklist was developed following methods recommended by the EQUATOR Network. The development process included three stages. In the first stage, a multidisciplinary team of experts was recruited by email and WeChat and further divided into three groups (a steering group, a consensus group, and a secretariat group); in the second stage, the initial items were collected by literature review and brainstorming; and in the third stage, the final items were formed through a Delphi survey and expert consultation. RESULTS: A total of 40 initial items were collected through literature review and brainstorming. A final checklist of 27 items was formed after the Delphi survey and expert consultation. The RIGHT for INT checklist contains items on the following 10 topics: title, abstract, background of guideline interpretation, background of guideline development, guideline development methodology, recommendations, strengths, and limitations, implications for local guidelines and clinical research, dissemination and implementation, and reporting quality. CONCLUSION: The RIGHT for INT checklist provides guidance for guideline interpreters on how to introduce and interpret clinical practice guidelines in a scientific and comprehensive manner.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Reporting · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Reporting · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.333
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.333
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.762
GPT teacher head0.678
Teacher spread0.084 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evidence-Based MedicineSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207