MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<i>Advanced statistics:</i> Understanding Medical Record Review (MRR) Studies

2004· article· en· W2119470638 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Worster, Ted Haines

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStrengths and weaknessesMedical literatureMEDLINEData sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical record review (MRR) studies have been reported to make up 25% of all scientific studies published in emergency medical (EM) journals. However, unlike other study designs, there are no standards for reporting MRRs and very little literature on the methodology for conducting them. The purpose of this article is to provide the reader with methodological guidance regarding the strengths and weaknesses of these types of studies.

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)0.225
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.815
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.775
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2250.815
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0150.037
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.009

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 head0.876
GPT teacher head0.630
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
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

Citations270
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Emergency MedicineSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207