MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1566635326 · doi:10.1177/1536867x0900900202

Updated Tests for Small-study Effects in Meta-analyses

2009· article· en· W1566635326 on OpenAlexaff
Roger Harbord, Ross Harris, Jonathan A C Sterne

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Stata Journal Promoting communications on statistics and Stata · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunnel plotPublication biasStatisticsMeta-analysisTest (biology)Statistical hypothesis testingMathematicsEconometricsMedicineConfidence intervalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes an updated version of the metabias command, which provides statistical tests for funnel plot asymmetry. In addition to the previously implemented tests, metabias implements two new tests that are recommended in the recently updated Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins and Green 2008). The first new test, proposed by Harbord, Egger, and Sterne (2006, Statistics in Medicine 25: 3443–3457), is a modified version of the commonly used test proposed by Egger et al. (1997, British Medical Journal 315: 629–634). It regresses Z/[Formula: see text] against [Formula: see text], where Z is the efficient score and V is Fisher's information (the variance of Z under the null hypothesis). The second new test is Peters’ test, which is based on a weighted linear regression of the intervention effect estimate on the reciprocal of the sample size. Both of these tests maintain better control of the false-positive rate than the test proposed by Egger at al., while retaining similar power.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.092
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0920.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.875
GPT teacher head0.617
Teacher spread0.258 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations323
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Stata Journal Promoting communications on statistics and StataSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207