MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409435450 · doi:10.1002/gin2.70024

Advancing health equity in the guideline enterprise

2025· article· en· W4409435450 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Darzi, Tamara Lotfi, Kian Torabiardakani

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Public Health Guidelines · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineEquity (law)BusinessAccountingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Highlights Addressing equity meaningfully helps reduce disease burden and improve health outcomes for all, including populations experiencing inequities, as highlighted in the commentaries by Persaud, Dewidar and colleagues. Guiding principles and tools, such as the GIN‐McMaster equity extension checklist, support the systematic consideration of equity in the guideline enterprise, ensuring recommendations remain adaptable, impactful, and responsive to evolving evidence and varying resource contexts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.175
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.417
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score0.927

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1750.417
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.017
Scholarly communication0.0160.015
Open science0.0040.015
Research integrity0.0230.039
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.698
GPT teacher head0.629
Teacher spread0.069 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Public Health GuidelinesSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207