MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

What is the Quality of the Orthopaedic Literature?

2007· article· en· W2018337357 on OpenAlexaff
Raman Mundi, Harman Chaudhry, Raj Sharma, Emil H. Schemitsch, Mohit Bhandari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsHamilton General HospitalUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Psychological interventionRandomized controlled trialRisk analysis (engineering)Systematic reviewEvidence-based medicineOrder (exchange)Computer scienceMedicineManagement scienceMEDLINEAlternative medicineEngineeringBusinessNursingPolitical scienceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The orthopaedic evidence base is far from ideal. In order to truly ensure the effectiveness of orthopaedic interventions, researchers must design and carry out high-quality randomized controlled trials that strive to minimize bias. Such endeavors will ultimately form a high-quality RCT evidence base, which can subsequently be integrated by systematic reviews and meta-analyses in order to provide clinicians with the best evidence for decision-making.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.233
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2330.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.350
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.183 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Long-Term Effects of Medical ImplantsSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207