Response to comment on: “Global guidelines for breast cancer screening: A systematic review”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are grateful to Dr. Paula B Gordon for her pertinent comments, which provide more information about developing the breast cancer screening guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) [[1]Klarenbach S. Sims-Jones N. Lewin G. Singh H. Thériault G. Tonelli M. et al.Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in women aged 40-74 years who are not at increased risk for breast cancer.CMAJ (Can Med Assoc J). 2018; 190: E1441-E1451Crossref PubMed Scopus (104) Google Scholar]. In our article [[2]Ren W. Chen M. Qiao Y. Zhao F. Global guidelines for breast cancer screening: a systematic review.Breast. 2022; 64: 85-99Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (24) Google Scholar], we have relied primarily on the original guidelines and the appendix provided by the guideline developers to evaluate the methodological quality. Because we did not have sufficient independent external information about the development of the guidelines, it was difficult to make an accurate assessment of whether the developers strictly followed the development principles of guidelines according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE Ⅱ) [[3]Brouwers M.C. Kho M.E. Browman G.P. Burgers J.S. Cluzeau F. Feder G. et al.AGREE Next Steps Consortium. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care.CMAJ (Can Med Assoc J). 2010; 182: E839-E842Crossref PubMed Scopus (2217) Google Scholar]. We also found another study conducted by Li J et al. [[4]Li J. Yang K.L. Cai Y.T. Tian J.H. Zheng Y.D. Wen Y. et al.Quality assessment of global breast cancer screening guidelines.Zhonghua Liuxingbingxue Zazhi. 2021; 42: 219-226Google Scholar] showed that CTFPHC guidelines scored highly in Domain 2 (Stakeholder Involvement) and Domain 3 (Rigour of Development) compared with other guidelines, which were similar to our systematic review findings. However, neither our study nor the study conducted by Li J et al. satisfactorily addressed the important problems raised by Dr. Gordon. High-quality guidelines are vital to facilitate clinical decision-making and to improve health outcomes and health service efficiency. Clear and transparent disclosure of the development process of guidelines will provide sufficient and reliable information for policymakers and clinicians in selecting 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
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".