MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404547622 · doi:10.1177/20542704241288955

Quality of undifferentiated chest pain evaluation and diagnosis guidelines: a systematic review and critical appraisal

2024· review· en· W4404547622 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJRSM Open · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineChest painCritical appraisalQuality (philosophy)MedicineIntensive care medicineVariety (cybernetics)Process (computing)Product (mathematics)Systematic reviewMedical physicsComputer scienceMEDLINEProcess managementPathologyAlternative medicineSurgeryBusinessArtificial intelligencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chest pain is a symptom that is potentially life-threatening and requires quick and accurate evaluations. This article describes the quality of guidelines related to the evaluation and diagnosis of acute, undifferentiated chest pain. After systematically evaluating existing guidelines, we found that there exists a wide variety of quality in these documents. Future documents that provide recommendations should utilize guideline evaluation tools during the creation process to ensure a high-quality product, regardless of document type.

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 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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.267
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.267
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.732
GPT teacher head0.698
Teacher spread0.033 · 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