Assessment of concordance between related systematic reviews and between related guideline recommendations: protocol for a methodological survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Independent systematic reviewers may arrive at different conclusions when analyzing evidence addressing the same clinical questions. Similarly, independent expert panels may arrive at different recommendations addressing the same clinical topics. When faced with a multiplicity of reviews or guidelines on a given topic, users are likely to benefit from a structured approach to evaluate concordance, and to explain discordant findings and recommendations. This protocol proposes a methodological survey to evaluate the prevalence of concordance between reviews addressing similar clinical questions, and between clinical practice guidelines addressing similar topics; and to identify methodological frameworks for the evaluation of concordance between related reviews and between related guidelines.
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | MetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (broad) Domain: Methods · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | medium |
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 | 0.660 | 0.334 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".