How to read and interpret the results of a Bayesian network meta-analysis: a short tutorial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this manuscript we use realistic data to conduct a network meta-analysis using a Bayesian approach to analysis. The purpose of this manuscript is to explain, in lay terms, how to interpret the output of such an analysis. Many readers are familiar with the forest plot as an approach to presenting the results of a pairwise meta-analysis. However when presented with the results of network meta-analysis, which often does not include the forest plot, the output and results can be difficult to understand. Further, one of the advantages of Bayesian network meta-analyses is in the novel outputs such as treatment rankings and the probability distributions are more commonly presented for network meta-analysis. Our goal here is to provide a tutorial for how to read the outcome of network meta-analysis rather than how to conduct or assess the risk of bias in a network meta-analysis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.533 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".