MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078052164 · doi:10.1097/sap.0b013e3181b95059

A Primer in Meta-Analysis for the Plastic Surgeon

2010· article· en· W2078052164 on OpenAlexaff
Claire Temple

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Plastic Surgery · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePrimer (cosmetics)Plastic surgeryMeta-analysisMEDLINEGeneral surgerySurgeryPathologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meta-analyses are useful tools for clinicians to remain current in their field of study. Meta-analyses are used to gain statistical power through the pooling of results from multiple smaller studies. As the highest level of evidence is considered meta-analysis of high-quality randomized-controlled trials, it is important that the plastic surgeons understand the methodology behind a meta-analysis-herein lies the goal of this article.

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)0.140
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.295
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1400.295
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.007
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0090.018
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0120.045
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.852
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Plastic SurgerySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207