MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

GRADE guidelines: 21 part 1. Study design, risk of bias, and indirectness in rating the certainty across a body of evidence for test accuracy

2020· article· en· W3005727251 on OpenAlexaff
Holger J. Schünemann, Reem A. Mustafa, Jan Brożek, Karen R Steingart, Mariska Leeflang, M. Hassan Murad, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Paul Glasziou, Roman Jaeschke, Stefan Lange, Joerg J Meerpohl, Miranda Langendam, Monica Hultcrantz, Gunn Elisabeth Vist, Elie A. Akl, Mark Helfand, Nancy Santesso, Lotty Hooft, Rob Scholten, Måns Rosén, Anne WS Rutjes, Mark Crowther, Paola Muti, Heike Raatz, Mohammed T Ansari, John W Williams, Regina Kunz, Jeff Harris, Íngrid Arévalo Rodríguez, Mikashmi Kohli, Gordon Guyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsOttawa Public HealthMcGill UniversityImpactMcMaster University
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsCertaintyTest (biology)GuidelineQuality of evidenceResearch designEvidence-based medicineSystematic reviewPsychologyEvidence-based practiceQuality (philosophy)MEDLINEMedicineMedical physicsApplied psychologyMeta-analysisMedical educationAlternative medicineStatisticsPathologyPolitical science

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

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)0.736
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.990
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.792

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7360.990
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.988
GPT teacher head0.753
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
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

Citations383
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

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