{"id":"W4400747961","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111460","title":"Analysis of risk of bias assessments in a sample of intervention systematic reviews, Part II: focus on risk of bias tools reveals few meet current appraisal standards","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","topic":"Meta-analysis and systematic reviews","field":"Decision Sciences","cited_by":7,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"Queen's University; Queen's University Belfast","keywords":"Sample (material); Systematic review; Focus (optics); Psychology; Risk assessment; Risk analysis (engineering); Environmental health; Medicine; Statistics; Actuarial science; Applied psychology; MEDLINE; Computer science; Business; Political science; Mathematics; Computer security","routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":true,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":true},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":["metaresearch"],"consensus_categories":["metaresearch"],"category_scores_codex":[0.552992,0.003792381,0.01593459,0.01580767,0.002489248,0.0102886,0.004948242,0.004961167,0.005586962],"category_scores_gemma":[0.861891,0.003004504,0.04237737,0.01179492,0.004474988,0.01011113,0.006987396,0.007919406,0.0008795941],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.003672069,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.007271278,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.002209041,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.006451082,"domain_scores_codex":[0.2611375,0.4212019,0.2338645,0.02560156,0.05639442,0.001800191],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.05717609,0.8446207,0.04894318,0.0287788,0.01952315,0.0009580987],"domain_codex":"methods","domain_gemma":"methods","domain_candidate":"methods","domain_consensus":"methods","study_design_codex":"meta_analysis","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.005057805,0.0001995905,0.08366686,0.2441926,0.5323007,0.0003729432,0.003261772,0.001828248,0.001601346,0.00503694,0.007382594,0.1150986],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00774123,0.00354324,0.1673334,0.0999956,0.6122282,0.002024431,0.002532869,0.01300484,0.004192038,0.05738243,0.02919596,0.0008258083],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.09393147,0.4773984,0.3545046,0.0109147,0.004228272,0.03499233,0.01519302,0.001555469,0.007281864],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7341055,0.02709462,0.1960828,0.006844677,0.001320371,0.02805321,0.005221647,0.000529693,0.0007474493],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.447008,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5512404,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.9149829694237094,"score_gpt":0.7084217684122412,"score_spread":0.2065612010114681,"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."}}