MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280555023 · doi:10.1002/cl2.1242

PROTOCOL: Guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development: A scoping review

2022· review· en· W4280555023 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer Petkovic, Alison Riddle, Lyubov Lytvyn, Joanne Khabsa, Elie A. Akl, Vivian Welch, Olivia Magwood, Pearl Atwere, Ian D. Graham, Sean Grant, Denny John, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Étienne V Langlois, Reem A. Mustafa, Alex Todhunter‐Brown, Holger J. Schünemann, Maureen Smith, Aírton Tetelbom Stein, Tom Concannon, Peter Tugwell

Bibliographic record

VenueCampbell Systematic Reviews · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalImpactCanadiana.orgMcMaster UniversityUniversity of OttawaBruyère
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAmerican University of BeirutWorld Health Organization
KeywordsGuidelineProtocol (science)Stakeholder engagementStakeholderProcess (computing)Process managementMedicinePsychologyBusinessComputer sciencePolitical scienceAlternative medicinePublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: to identify, describe, and summarize existing guidance and methods for multistakeholder engagement throughout the health guideline development process.

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)0.212
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.372
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2120.372
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.012
Bibliometrics0.0150.019
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0050.009
Research integrity0.0120.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1760.072

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 head0.811
GPT teacher head0.616
Teacher spread0.195 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreProtocol

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

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCampbell Systematic ReviewsSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207