MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171207688 · doi:10.4103/0255-0857.136547

Meta-analysis in microbiology

2014· review· en· W2171207688 on OpenAlexaff
Noel Pabalan, Hamdi Jarjanazi, Theodore S. Steiner

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Journal of Medical Microbiology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMinistry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical microbiologyMeta-analysisStatistical analysisValue (mathematics)Data scienceMicrobiologyMedicineComputer scienceBiologyStatisticsMathematicsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of meta-analysis in microbiology may facilitate decision-making that impacts public health policy. Directed at clinicians and researchers in microbiology, this review outlines the steps in performing this statistical technique, addresses its biases and describes its value in this discipline. The survey to estimate extent of the use of meta-analyses in microbiology shows the remarkable growth in the use of this research methodology, from a minimal Asian output to a level comparable with those of Europe and North America in the last 7 years.

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)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.149
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.149
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.022
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.708
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.165 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndian Journal of Medical MicrobiologySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207