MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324141337 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20220098

Canadian Association of Radiologists Diagnostic Imaging Referral Guidelines: a guideline development protocol

2023· article· en· W4324141337 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Candyce Hamel, Ryan Margau, Paul Pageau, Marc Venturi, Leila Esmaeilisaraji, Barb Avard, Sam Campbell, Noel Corser, Nicolas Dea, Edmund Kwok, Cathy MacLean, Erin Sarrazin, Charlotte J. Yong‐Hing, Kaitlin M. Zaki-Metias

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiology practices and education
Canadian institutionsVictoria General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineMedicineReferralGrading (engineering)Medical physicsMEDLINEProtocol (science)Health careAppropriate Use CriteriaFamily medicinePathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive diagnostic imaging referral guidelines are an important tool to assist referring clinicians and radiologists in determining the safest and best-clinical-value diagnostic imaging study for their patients; the Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) last produced its diagnostic imaging referral guidelines in 2012. In partnership with several national organizations, referring clinicians, radiologists, and patient and family advisors from across Canada, the association is redoing its referral guidelines using a new methodology for guideline development, and these guideline recommendations will be suited for integration into clinical decision support systems. METHODS: Expert panels of radiologists, referring clinicians and a patient advisor will work with epidemiologists at the CAR to create guidelines across 13 clinical sections. The expert panel for each section will first create a comprehensive list of clinical and diagnostic scenarios to include in the guidelines. Canadian Association of Radiologists epidemiologists will then conduct a systematic rapid scoping review to identify systematically produced guidelines from other guideline groups. The corresponding expert panel will develop diagnostic imaging recommendations for each clinical and diagnostic scenario using the recommendations identified from the scoping review and contextualize them to the Canadian health care systems. The expert panels will accomplish this using an adapted Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework, which reflects the benefits and harms, values and preferences, equity, accessibility, resources and cost. INTERPRETATION: Freely available, up-to-date, comprehensive Canadian-specific diagnostic imaging referral guidelines are needed. A transparent and structured guideline-development approach will aid the CAR and its partners in producing guidelines across its 13 sections.

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)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.158
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.158
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0140.019
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0090.008
Research integrity0.0080.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.012

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.330 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicRadiology practices and educationFrench-language works237,207