MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Guidelines for reporting descriptive statistics in health research

2008· article· en· W1907348896 on OpenAlexaff
Lehana Thabane, Noori Akhtar‐Danesh

Bibliographic record

VenueNurse Researcher · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Coding and Health Information
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDescriptive statisticsDescriptive researchSubject (documents)Quality (philosophy)PsychologyStatisticsData scienceComputer scienceLibrary scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The quality of reporting of results of health studies has been the subject of several papers in the recent years. There are several guidelines published on the topic, but improvements have been very slow Lehana Thebane and Noori Akhtar-Danesh provide advice on how to report the analysis methods used to describe data and determine the descriptive statistics to use, and the accuracy with which to report the results.

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)0.341
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.719
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3410.719
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0390.056
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0120.008
Open science0.0100.006
Research integrity0.0080.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.035

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 head0.948
GPT teacher head0.723
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreMethods

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

Citations39
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNurse ResearcherSame topicMedical Coding and Health InformationFrench-language works237,207