MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017827217 · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2014.05.012

Improvement in the quality of abstracts in major clinical journals since CONSORT extension for abstracts: A systematic review

2014· review· en· W2017827217 on OpenAlexaff
Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Michael Thabane, Thuva Vanniyasingam, Victoria Borg Debono, Sarah Daisy Kosa, Shiyuan Zhang, Chenglin Ye, Sameer Parpia, Brittany B. Dennis, Lehana Thabane

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Clinical Trials · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesPopulation Health Research InstituteOntario Clinical Oncology GroupUniversity of WaterlooMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlindingConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsConfidence intervalChecklistRandomized controlled trialOdds ratioMEDLINESystematic reviewFamily medicineInternal 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)0.308
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.562
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3080.562
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.027
Bibliometrics0.0190.020
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0140.010
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0050.007
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 head0.973
GPT teacher head0.744
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
DomainReporting
GenreReview

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

Citations76
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Clinical TrialsSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207