Distinguishing ASH clinical practice guidelines from other forms of ASH clinical advice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The American Society of Hematology (ASH) develops a variety of resources that provide guidance to clinicians on the diagnosis and management of blood diseases. These resources include clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and other forms of clinical advice. Although both ASH CPGs and other forms of clinical advice provide recommendations, they differ with respect to the methods underpinning their development, the principal type of recommendations they offer, their transparency and concordance with published evidence, and the time and resources required for their development. It is crucial that end users be aware of the differences between CPGs and other forms of clinical advice and that producers and publishers of these resources use clear and unambiguous terminology to facilitate their distinction. The objective of this article is to highlight the similarities and differences between ASH CPGs and other forms of ASH clinical advice and discuss the implications of these differences for end users.
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 | 0.163 | 0.511 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".