MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1561154803 · doi:10.1002/9781444345100.ch2

Understanding Hierarchies of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation

2011· other· en· W1561154803 on OpenAlexaff
Raman Mundi, Brad Petrisor

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Orthopedics · 2011
Typeother
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hierarchies of evidence have been established to assist clinicians in judging the overall quality of studies and for developing grades of recommendation. These hierarchies take into account both study design and study methodology, among other characteristics, to rank studies into several levels. Studies of a sound design and methodological rigor are less subject to bias and rank highly in the hierarchy, whereas those studies vulnerable to biased results rank progressively lower in the hierarchy. It is on the basis of these hierarchies that grades of recommendation and clinical practice guidelines can be established to facilitate the practice of evidence-based medicine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.346
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.797
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3460.797
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.013
Bibliometrics0.0670.029
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0280.020
Open science0.0100.012
Research integrity0.0110.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.969
GPT teacher head0.559
Teacher spread0.411 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Orthopedics→Same topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews→French-language works237,207→