MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1975094598 · doi:10.1136/bmj.e5989

Review overemphasises benefits and downplays serious harms

2012· letter· en· W1975094598 on OpenAlexaff
Vijaya M Musini, Barbara Mintzes, Aaron M Tejani, James M Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2012
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoporosisPostmenopausal osteoporosisCritical appraisalBone mineralRandomized controlled trialIntensive care medicinePhysical therapyAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We recently conducted a systematic review of bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Our critical appraisal of evidence from 33 randomised controlled trials (25 375 women) of at least one year’s duration reached different conclusions from those of Poole and Compston.1 2 The goal of treatment is prevention of fragility fractures. Effects on bone mineral …

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)0.099
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.387
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0990.387
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0080.014
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0230.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.309 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ→Same topicBone health and osteoporosis research→French-language works237,207→