{"id":"W2538488284","doi":"10.1016/j.jid.2016.08.021","title":"Research Techniques Made Simple: Assessing Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"review","venue":"Journal of Investigative Dermatology","topic":"Meta-analysis and systematic reviews","field":"Decision Sciences","cited_by":308,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"ca_institutions":"Women's College Hospital; University of Toronto","funders":"Eli Lilly and Company","keywords":"Systematic review; Protocol (science); Transparency (behavior); Publication bias; Publishing; Risk analysis (engineering); MEDLINE; Actuarial science; Computer science; Psychology; Data science; Meta-analysis; Medicine; Alternative medicine; Political science; Business; Computer security; Pathology; Law","routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":false},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":["metaresearch"],"consensus_categories":["metaresearch"],"category_scores_codex":[0.5545325,0.005911979,0.02252711,0.02200616,0.002874933,0.01418349,0.008171295,0.01050805,0.005111222],"category_scores_gemma":[0.8896555,0.007270101,0.03095557,0.02020429,0.0086646,0.01677113,0.01113775,0.01469112,0.000812784],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.006040638,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01959849,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.003529769,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.006779136,"domain_scores_codex":[0.1149633,0.7521053,0.09070492,0.01329714,0.02827243,0.000656909],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.04473452,0.8940955,0.03193269,0.0195867,0.009082035,0.0005684758],"domain_codex":"methods","domain_gemma":"methods","domain_candidate":"methods","domain_consensus":"methods","study_design_codex":"systematic_review","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.002976867,0.0001819942,0.01180201,0.3804187,0.3054277,0.0005681072,0.003375152,0.005424213,0.0008653426,0.0221377,0.01158926,0.2552329],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.007239952,0.003078232,0.01529707,0.2047701,0.3861836,0.002018637,0.001702519,0.03185586,0.003094334,0.3045896,0.03831083,0.001859302],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"methods","genre_gemma":"review","genre_scores_codex":[0.006936542,0.461767,0.4958634,0.01171117,0.007093849,0.01138551,0.002036778,0.001106445,0.002099301],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.1389574,0.07165255,0.7582653,0.0060124,0.002566623,0.02089963,0.0006006281,0.0004331601,0.0006123025],"genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.4454675,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5493407,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.9161941926720168,"score_gpt":0.6522576114064148,"score_spread":0.263936581265602,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}