MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297996183 · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112002

Proof of concept: all-virtual guideline development workshops using GRADE during the COVID-19 pandemic

2022· article· en· W4297996183 on OpenAlexaff
Madelin R. Siedler, M. Hassan Murad, Rebecca L. Morgan, Yngve Falck–Ytter, Reem A. Mustafa, Shahnaz Sultan, Philipp Dahm

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ evidence-based medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrading (engineering)GuidelineMedical educationPandemicPsychological interventionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PsychologyMedicineNursingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework is an approach to assessing the certainty of evidence and developing clinical practice recommendations based on a systematic review of the relevant literature.1 Since 2014, the US GRADE Network (USGN) has held a total of 16 semiannual guideline development workshops for attendees ranging from healthcare organisation staff to patients to guideline panel members. Using an in-person format in different cities of the continental USA, experienced educators with extensive methodological background have taught participants how to apply the GRADE approach. In October 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic forced us to shift to a virtual format. Since that time, we have held a total of three online workshops, which provided us with the unique opportunity to compare the experiences of in-person and virtual participants. As part of a routine quality improvement effort and based on our retrospective analysis of post-workshop feedback surveys, we compared attendees’ self-perceived understanding of GRADE, determined how the virtual format affected those participants’ ability to attend, and assessed whether their perceived level of engagement and interaction was similar when compared with that of in-person participants. We present our experience in accordance with the Guideline for Reporting Evidence-based practice Educational interventions and Teaching.2 The learning objectives were as follows: After completing the workshop, participants should be able to:

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: Methods · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designmedium
models splitAgreement 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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.548
GPT teacher head0.576
Teacher spread0.028 · 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.

Metaresearch

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ evidence-based medicineSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207