MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983725709 · doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.07.299

Corrigendum to: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. International Journal of Surgery 2010;8:336–341

2010· erratum· en· W1983725709 on OpenAlexaff
David Moher

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Surgery · 2010
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStatement (logic)Systematic reviewMeta-analysisMEDLINEGeneral surgeryMedical physicsInternal medicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Original publication of the PRISMA statement in the International Journal of Surgery should have acknowledged that in order to encourage dissemination of the PRISMA statement, the article is freely accessible on bmj.com and has also been previously published in PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, and Open Medicine. The authors jointly hold the copyright of this article. For details on further use, please see the PRISMA website (www.prisma-statement.org/).

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)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.440
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.440
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0150.019
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0070.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1760.068

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 head0.907
GPT teacher head0.586
Teacher spread0.321 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreOther

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

Citations66
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of SurgerySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207