MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133413753 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.081086

Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: a primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatments meta-analyses

2009· review· en· W2133413753 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John P. A. Ioannidis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisComputer scienceEvidence-based medicineData scienceSystematic reviewMEDLINEManagement scienceMedicineAlternative medicinePathologyBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meta-analysis is an important research design for appraising evidence and guiding medical practice and health policy. [1][1] Meta-analyses draw strength from combining data from many studies. However, even if perfectly done with perfect data, a single meta-analysis that addresses 1 treatment

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)0.233
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.368
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2330.368
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.015
Bibliometrics0.0270.021
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0180.022
Open science0.0090.010
Research integrity0.0150.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.918
GPT teacher head0.599
Teacher spread0.319 · 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
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

Citations715
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207