Clinical guideline utilization in Uganda: A scoping review and comparison
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
Countries such as Uganda often depend on clinical practice guidelines from developed countries, non-profit charities, and international organizations. The sources and organizations that provide most of the guidelines used in Uganda are not well documented. The primary objective of this article was to determine whether a scoping review of scientific, peer-reviewed literature could identify the clinical guidelines actually used in Uganda. A secondary objective was to examine which organizations provided the majority of guidelines used. We therefore searched for consensus documents, guidelines, and meta-analyses published for use in African countries indexed in PubMed, OVID Medline, and Embase, and then surveyed guidelines currently in use in Ugandan medical practice. We thus compared these two sets of guidelines, as well as their breadth, geography, and sources, to make recommendations for similar low-income countries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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