MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias

2011· article· en· W2109346853 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon Guyatt, Andrew D Oxman, Víctor M. Montori, Gunn Elisabeth Vist, Regina Kunz, Jan Brożek, Pablo Alonso‐Coello, Ben Djulbegovic, David Atkins, Yngve Falck–Ytter, John W Williams, Joerg J Meerpohl, Susan L. Norris, Elie A. Akl, Holger J. Schünemann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunnel plotPublication biasObservational studyReporting biasSuspectMedicineMeta-analysisNon-response biasEvidence-based medicineEvidence-based practiceQuality of evidenceRandomized controlled trialQuality (philosophy)Sample size determinationMEDLINEPsychologyStatisticsAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.117
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.501
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1170.501
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.038
Bibliometrics0.0160.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0170.007
Research integrity0.0160.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.008

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 head0.997
GPT teacher head0.797
Teacher spread0.200 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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

Citations1,843
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical EpidemiologySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207