An evaluation of the guidelines of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical practice guidelines hope to offer unbiased, evidence-based guidance for clinicians. This paper examines levels of evidence contained within the guidelines of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada and compares classification of the recommendation (CoR) A/B/C/D/E/L (derived from evidence and consensus) versus quality of evidence assessment (QoEA) I-III. 1250 recommendations were analysed and 43% of recommendations were graded as “good” evidence, the highest grade of CoR, while just 24.6% of recommendations were based on the highest level of QoEA (level I). The paper discusses possible reasons for this discrepancy. The authors hope that this analysis promotes greater transparency in evidence-based medicine ultimately leading to using the best quality of evidence available yet taking into account any areas of scientific uncertainty. This will enhance respectful care of patients, while taking into account their autonomy and furthering the cause of patient centre care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.177 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.006 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".