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 54 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.

aboutno affunlabeled
Methodological quality assessment in systematic reviews in health sciences that included observational studies: a cross-sectional study/ Avaliação da qualidade metodológica em revisões sistemáticas na área das ciências da saúde que incluíram estudos observacionais: um estudo transversal
Carla Massignan, Luciana Butini Oliveira, Lia Rosana Honnef, Júlia Meller de Oliveira, Karyn Munyk Lehmkuhl, Patrícia Pauletto +2 more
2021· article· en· Brazilian Journal of Health Review· Decision Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · metaresearchconsensus · metaresearch
3
citations
affno abstractgemma · metaresearch+metaepi_broadgpt · metaresearch+metaepi_broadmodels agree
Adherence to RECORD reporting guidelines among observational studies using routinely collected health data published in general medical journals: a meta-epidemiologic study
Heather J. Zhao, Inna Ushcatz, Chantel Walwyn, Kevin Kim, Eric I. Benchimol, Sinéad Langan +1 more
2025· article· en· Journal of Clinical Epidemiology· Decision Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · metaresearch+metaepi_narrow+metaepi_broadconsensus · metaresearch
2
citations
affunlabeled
Some Random(ized) Thoughts
Achilleas Thoma, Felmont F. Eaves
2015· letter· en· Aesthetic Surgery Journal· Decision Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · metaresearchconsensus · none
2
citations
affunlabeled
In Reply to Mancilla-Galindo et al
Ivan Petrovitch Pavlov, Miguel Ibarra‐Estrada, Yonatan Perez, Stéphan Ehrmann, Jie Li
2022· letter· fr· Respiratory Care· Decision Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
2
citations
affno abstractunlabeled
Systematic and Other Reviews: Criteria and Complexities
Robert T. Sataloff, Matthew L. Bush, Rakesh Chandra, Douglas B. Chepeha, Brian Rotenberg, Edward Fisher +13 more
2021· article· en· Journal of Voice· Decision Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · metaresearchconsensus · metaresearch
2
citations
affvenueunlabeled
Evidence in Medicine: Math Versus Biology!
Tallal Younis, M. Thana, Chris Skedgel
2017· editorial· en· Current Oncology· Decision Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · metaresearchconsensus · none
2
citations

How this was built: Screen · Findings · About