MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024737544 · doi:10.1136/bmj.f2914

Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis

2013· review· en· W2024737544 on OpenAlexaff
Edward J. Mills, Kristian Thorlund, John P. A. Ioannidis

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularityComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Psychological interventionMeta-analysisInterpretation (philosophy)GuidelineData scienceManagement scienceArtificial intelligencePsychologyMedicineSocial psychologyEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Networks of randomized clinical trials can be evaluated in the context of a network meta-analysis, a procedure that permits inferences into the comparative effectiveness of interventions that may or may not have been evaluated directly against each other. This approach is quickly gaining popularity among clinicians and guideline decision makers. However, certain methodological aspects are poorly understood. Here, we explain the geometry of a network, statistical and conceptual heterogeneity and incoherence, and challenges in the application and interpretation of data synthesis. These concepts are essential to make sense of a network meta-analysis.

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)0.228
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.503
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2280.503
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0150.012
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.933
GPT teacher head0.617
Teacher spread0.315 · 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
DomainMethods
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

Citations734
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207