MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755850037 · doi:10.13105/wjma.v5.i4.80

Assessing the quality of studies in meta-analyses: Advantages and limitations of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale

2017· article· en· W2755850037 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Claudio Luchini, Brendon Stubbs, Marco Solmi, Nicola Veronese

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Meta-Analysis · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)Meta-analysisQuality (philosophy)GeographyMedicineCartographyInternal medicinePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessing the quality of studies in meta-analyses: Advantages and limitations of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale

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)0.485
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.736
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4850.736
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.027
Bibliometrics0.0160.015
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0110.010
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.969
GPT teacher head0.689
Teacher spread0.281 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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

Citations968
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Meta-AnalysisSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207