MétaCan
Menu
Cohort builder

4,299,418 works, Canadian by any of four routes.

Every filter state is a URL; the URL is the query; the query is citable via /q/⟨hash⟩. The page, the API and the export parse the same parameters.

The current cohort, streamed from the database: every work column, the machine labels, the provisional scores, and the per-row validation status. Exports are capped at 100,000 rows. Mints a permanent /q/ link for this exact query. The same filters always produce the same link, whoever asks.

Search term
Author
Year range
Sort
Language
Type
Field
Venue
Topic
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Retraction
Abstract
Evidence source
Study design
Label agreement
Label status

Direct Codex and Gemma labels are unvalidated and sparse. Distilled predictions cover the full frame and are also unvalidated. Choose the evidence source explicitly; absence of a direct label is never a negative label.

affaffiliation
fundfunder
venuejournal
aboutaboutness

The four routes compose: require the funder route and exclude affiliation to get the funder-only stratum no affiliation-based frame ever sees.

4,076 results · 1 filter active ·
Results by year
20002025
Publication date
Categories
Machine labels · sparse coverage
Evidence
Language
Type
Citations
An unlabeled work is unknown, not a negative. Label coverage is reported on every query.
4,076 works in the cohort · of 4,299,418page 16 of 82

Labels cover 359 of 4,076 works in this cohort. The rest are unlabeled, which is not a negative label: the label table is sparse today and grows as labeling rounds land.

Distilled predictions cover 4,076 of 4,076 works in this cohort. Predictions are machine_predicted_unvalidated. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work (title-only); the Codex side is a distilled, calibrated classifier. Candidate is the union; consensus is the intersection.

affunlabeled
How to choose the best journal for your case report
Richard A. Rison, Jennifer Kelly Shepphird, Michael Kidd
2017· editorial· en· Journal of Medical Case Reports· Decision Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · metaresearchconsensus · none
67
citations
affno abstractunlabeled
Systematic reviews experience major limitations in reporting absolute effects
Pablo Alonso‐Coello, Alonso Carrasco‐Labra, Romina Brignardello‐Petersen, Ignacio Neumann, Elie A. Akl, Robin W.M. Vernooij +21 more
2015· review· en· Journal of Clinical Epidemiology· Decision Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · metaresearchconsensus · metaresearch
66
citations
fundno affgemma · metaresearchgpt · metaresearchmodels split
Validation of a new assessment tool for qualitative research articles
Lone Schou, Helle Høstrup, Elin Egholm Lyngsø, Susan Larsen, Ingrid Poulsen
2011· article· en· Journal of Advanced Nursing· Decision Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · metaresearchconsensus · metaresearch
65
citations
affgemma · metaresearch+metaepi_broadgpt · metaresearch+metaepi_broadmodels agree
The reporting of progression criteria in protocols of pilot trials designed to assess the feasibility of main trials is insufficient: a meta-epidemiological study
Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Sarah Daisy Kosa, Daeria O. Lawson, Rosa Stalteri, Oluwatobi R. Olaiya, Ahlam Alotaibi +1 more
2019· article· en· Pilot and Feasibility Studies· Decision Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · metaresearch+metaepi_broadconsensus · metaresearch
65
citations
afffundno abstractunlabeled
N-of-1 trials are a tapestry of heterogeneity
Salima Punja, Cecilia Bukutu, Larissa Shamseer, Margaret Sampson, Lisa Hartling, Liana Urichuk +1 more
2016· review· en· Journal of Clinical Epidemiology· Decision Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · metaresearchconsensus · metaresearch
64
citations

How this was built: Screen · Findings · About