The 2022 review of the 2019 American Society of Hematology guidelines on immune thrombocytopenia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The 2019 American Society of Hematology (ASH) guidelines for immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) included recommendations on the management of adults (recommendations 1-9) and children (recommendations 10-21) with primary ITP . We describe here the results of a review of the 2019 guidelines by a working group of experts requested by ASH to inform decision-making about the need for and timing of a guideline revision. An updated Medline and Embase search applied the same search terms as in the 2019 ASH guidelines, limited to systematic reviews and clinical trials, from May 2017 to July 2022. There were 193 studies identified, 102 underwent abstract reviews, and 54 full reviews. Each study was assessed based on relevance to the previous recommendation with regard to the population, prioritized outcomes, new outcomes, and study design. Reviewers assessed if the data would change the strength or the directionality of the existing recommendation or merit development of a new recommendation. Based on this review, the ASH Committee on Quality endorsed a focused update on second-line management for adults with ITP. In addition, there will be continued annual monitoring and reviewing of the 2019 ASH guidelines on ITP in full to evaluate when there is sufficient new evidence to warrant additional revisions.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 it