MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2959013041 · doi:10.1186/s13643-019-1090-9

Steps toward more complete reporting of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA)

2019· editorial· en· W2959013041 on OpenAlex
Trevor A. McGrath, David Moher, Matthew D. F. McInnes

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

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSystematic reviewMedicineTest (biology)Meta-analysisStatement (logic)Medical physicsMEDLINECompleteness (order theory)Data miningPathologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reporting standards in biomedical research have been shown to be suboptimal. The publication of the PRISMA statement has improved the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews, but several issues specific to diagnostic test accuracy are not included in the PRISMA statement. Therefore, a diagnostic test accuracy extension of the PRISMA statement, PRISMA-DTA, was created. This commentary addresses completeness of reporting in systematic reviews, the PRISMA-DTA statement, and strategies for optimal uptake of reporting guidelines.

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.

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)0.632
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.998
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.452
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6320.998
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.1950.037
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0100.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.810
GPT teacher head0.565
Teacher spread0.245 · 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