MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737356508 · doi:10.1136/bmj.j2998

Enhancing the usability of systematic reviews by improving the consideration and description of interventions

2017· article· en· W2737356508 on OpenAlexafffund
Tammy Hoffmann, Andrew D Oxman, John P. A. Ioannidis, David Moher, Toby J Lasserson, David Tovey, Ken Stein, Katy Sutcliffe, Philippe Ravaud, Douglas G. Altman, Rafael Perera, Paul Glasziou

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Health and Medical Research CouncilCancer Research UKLaura and John Arnold FoundationUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsUsabilitySystematic reviewPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Management sciencePsychologyMedical educationMEDLINEMedicineComputer scienceNursingEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The importance of adequate intervention descriptions in minimising research waste and improving research usability and reproducibility has gained attention in the past few years. Nearly all focus to date has been on intervention reporting in randomised trials. Yet clinicians are encouraged to use systematic reviews, whenever available, rather than single trials to inform their practice. This article explores the problem and implications of incomplete intervention details during the planning, conduct, and reporting of systematic reviews and makes recommendations for review authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors

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)0.208
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.201
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2080.201
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.816
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations196
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207