MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091373813 · doi:10.1002/ebch.116

Tips and tricks for understanding and using SR results. No 5: Prospective Trial Registers

2007· article· en· W2091373813 on OpenAlexaff
Lotty Hooft, Martin Offringa, An‐Wen Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelevance (law)Focus (optics)Clinical trialSystematic reviewClinical PracticePsychologyMedicineMEDLINEMedical educationFamily medicinePolitical sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This fifth article for ‘Tips and tricks for understanding and using SR results’ in Evidence‐Based Child Health is, like the previous ones, aimed at helping readers to interpret the results of systematic reviews and to use the results in clinical practice. This time, we focus on the development of (inter)national prospective trial registers and their relevance for systematic reviews. The information in this article is based on published papers on the topic and the experience of the authors in trial registration. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.317
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.114
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3170.114
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.814
GPT teacher head0.587
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review JournalSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207