MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320749482 · doi:10.1002/14651858.ed000111

Viewpoint: taking into account risks of random errors when analysing multiple outcomes in systematic reviews

2016· editorial· en· W2320749482 on OpenAlexaff
Janus Christian Jakobsen, Jørn Wetterslev, Theis Lange, Christian Gluud

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsCochrane
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutcome (game theory)Confidence intervalMeta-analysisNull hypothesisStatistical significanceStatisticsMedicinep-valueType I and type II errorsStatistical hypothesis testingEconometricsMathematicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cochrane Review authors should avoid overemphasis on whether or not a meta-analysis result is statistically significant.[1] The clinical significance and positive or negative implication of an e ect estimate should only be emphasised if the statistical assessment is conclusive beyond reasonable doubt.[1] Confidence intervals not containing 1.0 for a binary outcome or 0.0 for a continuous outcome, as well as the corresponding P values, are o en used as thresholds for statistical significance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.541
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.806
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5410.806
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.1040.016
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0110.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.585
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.048 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
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

Citations67
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207