MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409447414 · doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-081902

Why Core GRADE is needed: introduction to a new series in <i>The BMJ</i>

2025· article· en· W4409447414 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon Guyatt, Monica Hultcrantz, Thomas Agoritsas, Alfonso Iorio, Per Olav Vandvik, Víctor M. Montori

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeries (stratigraphy)Core (optical fiber)Computer scienceData scienceMedicineTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article introduces a series of papers on new guidance for the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Core GRADE was produced in response to the need for a concise, well organised exposition of the key elements of GRADE that users require to make optimal judgments about certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. This series is primarily aimed at systematic review authors, guideline developers, and health technology assessment practitioners, along with evidence based medicine educators who help clinicians to understand and use GRADE to guide clinical care. In producing Core GRADE, the authors address the problems of out-of-date and poorly organised guidance resulting from publication of the many GRADE papers over 20 years.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.512
GPT teacher head0.573
Teacher spread0.061 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations13
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207