Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of systematic reviews published in the peer-reviewed literature has increased dramatically in the last decade, and for good reason. They have become an essential resource for clinicians who want unbiased and current answers for their clinical questions; researchers and funders who want to identify the most critical evidence gaps for study; payers and administrators who want to make coverage, formulary, and purchasing decisions; and policymakers who want to develop quality measures and clinical guidelines. Targeted to beginners interested in conducting their own systematic reviews and users of systematic reviews looking for a brief introduction, this primer (1) highlights the differences between review types; (2) outlines the major steps in performing a systematic review; and (3) offers a set of resources to help authors perform and report valid and actionable systematic reviews.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.387 | 0.565 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.028 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".