MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Deficiencies in reporting of statistical methodology in recent randomized trials of nonpharmacologic pain treatments: ACTTION systematic review

2015· review· en· W2177453088 on OpenAlexaff
Jordan D. Dworkin, Andrew McKeown, John T. Farrar, Ian Gilron, Matthew Hunsinger, Robert D. Kerns, Michael McDermott, Bob A. Rappaport, Dennis C. Turk, Robert H. Dworkin, Jennifer S. Gewandter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersU.S. Food and Drug Administration
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialMissing dataClinical trialSystematic reviewMassageMEDLINEInterpretabilityAlternative medicineSurgeryInternal medicineStatistics

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)0.674
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.920
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6740.920
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.017
Bibliometrics0.0180.019
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0130.009
Open science0.0080.009
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.991
GPT teacher head0.805
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designSystematic review
DomainReporting
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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

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