Evaluation of Guidelines and Consensus on Ectopic Pregnancy Based by AGREE II Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: To evaluate the methodological quality of diagnosis and treatment guidelines/consensus related to ectopic pregnancy. Materials and methods: Use the "Appraisal of Guidelines and Research and Evaluation" (AGREE II) method to evaluate the differences among the guideline/consensus. Results: We appraised 9 clinical practice guidelines for ectopic pregnancy (9 clinical practice guidelines from 5 countries) including the United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, and China. The guidelines received the highest scores for clarity of presentation (82.72%) and lowest scores for editorial independence (30.56%). The comprehensive recommendations of the 7 guidelines were Grade B, the other 2 guidelines were Grade C. Conclusion: The overall quality of the ectopic pregnancy guidelines had room for improvement. It is recommended to supplement and improve the four fields of "independence", "rigor", "participants" and "application", especially the "independence" and "application" fields.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".