European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) Standard Operating Procedure for the development of guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) has developed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the development of clinical practice guidelines, ensuring adherence to rigorous methodological standards based on the principles of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Key components include a transparent process for managing conflicts of interest, the incorporation of multidisciplinary panels including individuals with lived experience of diabetes, an evidence synthesis based on comprehensive systematic reviews, and an explicit peer review process. This SOP delineates the roles and responsibilities of the main structures involved, including the Guidelines Oversight Committee, Guideline Development Panels, and Evidence Synthesis Teams. Additionally, the SOP describes the main stages in guideline development, namely scoping of the guideline topic, evidence synthesis, development of Evidence-to-Decision frameworks for the formulation of clear, patient-centred recommendations, writing of the guideline document and the review process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.189 | 0.379 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.036 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".