MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736946457 · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1256

Network meta‐analysis of disconnected networks: How dangerous are random baseline treatment effects?

2017· article· en· W2736946457 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Synthesis Methods · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsBaseline (sea)Meta-analysisComputer scienceMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In network meta-analysis, the use of fixed baseline treatment effects (a priori independent) in a contrast-based approach is regularly preferred to the use of random baseline treatment effects (a priori dependent). That is because, often, there is not a need to model baseline treatment effects, which carry the risk of model misspecification. However, in disconnected networks, fixed baseline treatment effects do not work (unless extra assumptions are made), as there is not enough information in the data to update the prior distribution on the contrasts between disconnected treatments. In this paper, we investigate to what extent the use of random baseline treatment effects is dangerous in disconnected networks. We take 2 publicly available datasets of connected networks and disconnect them in multiple ways. We then compare the results of treatment comparisons obtained from a Bayesian contrast-based analysis of each disconnected network using random normally distributed and exchangeable baseline treatment effects to those obtained from a Bayesian contrast-based analysis of their initial connected network using fixed baseline treatment effects. For the 2 datasets considered, we found that the use of random baseline treatment effects in disconnected networks was appropriate. Because those datasets were not cherry-picked, there should be other disconnected networks that would benefit from being analyzed using random baseline treatment effects. However, there is also a risk for the normality and exchangeability assumption to be inappropriate in other datasets even though we have not observed this situation in our case study. We provide code, so other datasets can be investigated.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinglow
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.544
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.463
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5440.463
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.012
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.000
Open science0.0050.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.906
GPT teacher head0.657
Teacher spread0.249 · 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