MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2748396237 · doi:10.1111/jgs.15020

Systematic Review of Sex‐Specific Reporting of Data: Cholinesterase Inhibitor Example

2017· review· en· W2748396237 on OpenAlexafffund
Nishila Mehta, Craig Rodrigues, Manpreet Lamba, Wei Wu, Susan E. Bronskill, Nathan Herrmann, Sudeep S. Gill, An‐Wen Chan, Robín Masón, Suzanne Day, Jerry H. Gurwitz, Paula A. Rochon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoQueen's UniversityWomen's College HospitalMcMaster UniversityYork University
FundersPhysicians' Services Incorporated Foundation
KeywordsMedicineDonepezilInterquartile rangeGalantamineClinical trialRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectMEDLINERivastigmineCochrane LibraryInternal medicineFamily medicineDementiaDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To improve the value of research for older adults, we examine sex-specific reporting of data from drug trials for the management of dementia. These data are important because they may influence considerations ranging from the health of populations to shared decision-making by individual patient and caregiver about the risk and benefit of a drug therapy. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials of cholinesterase inhibitors (i.e., donepezil, rivastigmine, or galantamine) with clinical outcomes were identified from searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Sex-specific data were extracted from nine sections (title, abstract, introduction, methods, outcomes, results, discussion, limitations, and conclusion). Among the donepezil trials only, more detailed harms data were obtained. FINDINGS: Thirty-three randomized controlled trials were identified evaluating 15,971 participants (9,103 (57%) female). Trials were highly cited (median citations 158, interquartile range 62-441) and published in high impact journals (median impact factor 7.4, interquartile range 3.4-8.2). Sex was not mentioned in the title, introduction, limitations, or conclusion section of any trial. Only three trials (9%) mentioned sex in the abstract (all as a demographic characteristic), and 8 (24%) in the methods. Almost all (32 (97%)) trials mentioned sex in the results as a demographic variable. One trial reported a sex difference for a secondary outcome. Among the 16 trials studying donepezil, adverse events were frequently reported and often dose-related. No trial provided sex-specific reporting of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: There is an almost complete lack of sex-specific reporting of data in clinical trials for dementia drug therapies, and no sex-specific reporting of adverse events. Sex-specific reporting of data should be required in drug trials to increase research value and ultimately inform more tailored prescribing for older adults.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.114
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.496
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1140.496
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.014
Bibliometrics0.0230.023
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.346
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.130 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainReporting
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

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics SocietySame topicSex and Gender in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207