MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Authors' reply to Drs J Atashili and L Kalilani

2008· article· en· W2032012462 on OpenAlexaff
A Anema, Eugene Mills, Curtis Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenueHIV Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaAIDS VancouverUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePoolingMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialStatisticsArtificial intelligenceInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We were perhaps overly critical of the meta-analysis of Atashili et al. [1]. We did not mean to imply that their work was inaccurately conducted, rather that pooling such different trial designs is methodologically inappropriate. Case–control studies cannot be interpreted as providing evidence of influenza incidence as the cases are chosen because of their confirmed diagnosis. Further, the outcomes in Table 2 in their study do not match the pooled data in Fig. 1, which is simply a reporting error. Given the small number of studies available, the fact that pooled estimates are similar is not surprising. We maintain that only randomized trials that are adequately powered can provide evidence of effectiveness.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHIV MedicineSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207