Bibliographic record
Abstract
Network meta-analysis is an extension of the conventional pair wise meta-analysis to include treatments that have not been compared head to head. It has in recent years caught the interest of clinical investigators in comparative effectiveness research. While allowing a simultaneous comparison of a large number of treatment effects, an inclusion of indirect effects (i.e., estimating effects using treatments that have not been randomized head to head) may introduce bias. This bias occurs from not accounting for covariates differences in the analysis, in a way that allows transfer of causal information across trials. Although this problem might not be entirely new to network meta-analysis researchers, it has not been given a formal treatment. Occasionally it is tackled by fitting a meta-regression model to account for imbalance of covariates. However, this approach may still produce biased estimates if covariates responsible for disparity across studies are post-treatment variables. To address the problem, we use the graphical method known as transportability to demonstrate whether and how indirect treatment effects can validly be estimated in network meta-analysis. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/EDE/B37.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".