MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993828216 · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00313-9

Sources of heterogeneity in the meta-analysis of observational studies The example of SIDS and sleeping position

2001· review· en· W1993828216 on OpenAlexaff
Terence Dwyer, David Couper, Stephen D. Walter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyMeta-analysisSudden infant death syndromeOdds ratioMedicineAssociation (psychology)Study heterogeneityPosition (finance)OddsDemographyLogistic regressionPediatricsPsychologyPathologyInternal medicine

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)0.091
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.230
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0910.230
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.037
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.890
GPT teacher head0.612
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designMeta-analysis
DomainMethods
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

Citations50
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical EpidemiologySame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207