MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385791529 · doi:10.1136/ebm-2023-pod.30

30 Using an adapted version of the G-TRUST to reduce overuse and overdiagnosis through appropriate guideline selection

2023· article· en· W4385791529 on OpenAlexaff
René Wittmer, Guylène Thériault, Geneviève Bois, Pascale Breault

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverdiagnosisGuidelineContext (archaeology)Clinical PracticeMedicineDyslipidemiaComputer scienceMedical educationPsychologyFamily medicineDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinicians are regularly faced with multiple and often conflicting guidelines. While clinicians may wish to reduce overuse in their practice, they may find doing so challenging when some guidelines regularly advocate or encourage low-value practices. The G-TRUST tool can be used to compare clinical practice guidelines and select the most useful or appropriate one in a given context. While this tool has been validated in the past, its length may limit its use in daily practice. We suggest an adapted and shortened version of the G-TRUST tool with only 3 questions to facilitate its use. Participants will be able to apply the tool in three different contexts presented by the facilitators (screening for dyslipidemia, screening for osteoporosis, and screening for diabetes) to appreciate how this tool can help select useful guidelines to reduce overuse and overdiagnosis. They will be invited to apply the tool to a domain or guideline of their choice and appreciate how it may facilitate discussion with colleagues and potentially reduce overuse and overdiagnosis. Objectives Appreciate how variation in different clinical practice guidelines may be a driver for overuse and Overdiagnosis. Familiarize themselves with the G-TRUST tool, as well as the author’s simplified version of the tool. Apply the simplified G-TRUST tool in different screening contexts suggested by the workshop facilitators to reduce overuse and Overdiagnosis. Apply the G-TRUST tool to compare two clinical practice guidelines on a topic of their choice to appreciate how it may be used to foster implementation of guidelines that reduce overuse and overdiagnosis at the consultation level. Method Practical workshop. Case studies in small groups where participants will be asked to compare clinical practice guidelines. Small group discussions on how the tool may be helpful to select guidelines that reduce overuse and overdiagnosis. Results In our experience, the modified G-TRUST allows selection of more appropriate clinical practice guidelines, that minimize overuse and overdiagnosis. This tool focuses on three major aspects of the G Trust and by simplifying the tool it allows to be possibly usable in clinical practice. Conclusions The adapted version of the G-TRUST tool can help select useful guidelines to reduce overuse and overdiagnosis at the consultation level.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.174
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.174
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.007

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 head0.397
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.051 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→