MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Corrigendum to “Advances in the GRADE approach to rate the certainty in estimates from a network meta-analysis” [J Clin Epidemiol 2018;93:36-44]

2018· erratum· en· W2803416088 on OpenAlexaff
Romina Brignardello‐Petersen, Ashley Bonner, Paul Alexander, Reed Siemieniuk, Toshi A. Furukawa, Bram Rochwerg, Glen Hazlewood, Waleed Alhazzani, Reem A. Mustafa, M. Hassan Murad, Milo A. Puhan, Holger J. Schünemann, Gordon Guyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2018
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryImpactUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertaintyRegretPairwise comparisonGrading (engineering)Meta-analysisQuality of evidenceComputer scienceMedicineManagement scienceOperations researchArtificial intelligenceMathematicsMachine learningEngineeringPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.314
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.314
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0130.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0620.044

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 head0.928
GPT teacher head0.652
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther · Editorial

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

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical EpidemiologySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207