MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015914486 · doi:10.1097/gim.0b013e318212fa82

Strengthening the reporting of Genetic Risk Prediction Studies: The GRIPS statement

2011· article· en· W2015914486 on OpenAlexaff
A. Cecile J.W. Janssens, John P. A. Ioannidis, Cornelia M. van Duijn, Julian Little, Muin J. Khoury

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics in Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesCenters for Disease Control and PreventionU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesNational Institutes of HealthErasmus Universitair Medisch Centrum RotterdamNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsChecklistTransparency (behavior)Multidisciplinary approachPublic healthStatement (logic)MedicineMEDLINEComputer scienceData sciencePsychologyPolitical sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.831
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.909
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.8310.909
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.017
Bibliometrics0.0200.024
Science and technology studies0.0050.013
Scholarly communication0.0140.017
Open science0.0140.018
Research integrity0.0260.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.876
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenetics in MedicineSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207