MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1966122728 · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2014.03.703

A Systematic Review, Critical Appraisal And Analysis Of The Quality Of Economic Evaluations In Stroke Imaging

2014· article· en· W1966122728 on OpenAlexaff
K.R. Burton, Nathan Perlis, Murray Krahn, Moira K. Kapral, Alan R. Moody, Andreas Laupacis

Bibliographic record

VenueValue in Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCINAHLThrombolysisStroke (engine)ChecklistMEDLINEModified Rankin ScalePsychological interventionCritical appraisalEmergency medicineIntensive care medicinePhysical therapyInternal medicineAlternative medicineIschemic strokePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.229
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.599
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2290.599
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.024
Bibliometrics0.0130.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.384 · 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 designSystematic review
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueValue in Health→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→