MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403475485 · doi:10.1002/cl2.1444

Protocol: Assessing the impact of interest‐holder engagement on guideline development: A systematic review

2024· review· en· W4403475485 on OpenAlexafffund
Lyubov Lytvyn, Jennifer Petkovic, Joanne Khabsa, Olivia Magwood, Pauline Campbell, Ian D. Graham, Kevin Pottie, Julia Bidonde, Heather Limburg, Danielle Pollock, Elie A. Akl, Thomas W. Concannon, Peter Tugwell

Bibliographic record

VenueCampbell Systematic Reviews · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalDalhousie UniversityPublic Health Agency of CanadaBruyèreUniversity of OttawaMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care ExcellencePatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
KeywordsChecklistGuidelineProtocol (science)Systematic reviewEmpirical researchProcess (computing)PsychologyMedicineMedical educationMEDLINEComputer scienceAlternative medicinePolitical scienceMathematicsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. The objective of this review is to identify and synthesize empirical research on the impacts of interest-holder engagement on the guideline development process and content. Our research questions are as follows: (1) What are the empirical examples of impact on the process in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist? (2) What are the empirical examples of impact on the content in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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 head0.759
GPT teacher head0.653
Teacher spread0.106 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCampbell Systematic ReviewsSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207