SYSTEM Research note on : the modified Ottawa method for updating systematic reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews aim to answer clearly formulated questions by using systematic and explicit methods for identifying, selecting, and critically appraising relevant research. However, as research progresses, the content of a systematic review may become obsolete. The modified Ottawa method was developed in order to identify qualitative and quantitative signals indicating the need to update a systematic review. The aim of this study was to investigate how well signals identified by the modified Ottawa method correspond with actual differences in key findings of an original systematic review and its subsequent update. METHOD: The modified Ottawa method was applied to key findings of an original systematic review report concerning the longevity of tooth restorations placed according to the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach in comparison to conventional restorative treatment using amalgam as gold standard. RESULTS: One qualitative and one quantitative signal were identified which corresponded well with the comparison results of the systematic review update and its predecessor. CONCLUSIONS: Signals identified by the modified Ottawa method corresponded with actual differences in key findings (or lack thereof) of an original systematic review and its subsequent update. These results suggest that the modified Ottawa method is a useful tool in identifying update needs of original systematic reviews. However, as this conclusion is derived from the investigation of only one systematic review, further studies are needed in order to confirm the applicability for systematic reviews in general.
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 | 0.639 | 0.892 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.056 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.010 |
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".