MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027747692 · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2020.04.1152

PNS152 MODELS USING ARM-BASED DATA ENTRY MAY GIVE MISLEADING INCONSISTENCY RESULTS IN NETWORK META-ANALYSES INVOLVING MULTI-ARM TRIALS

2020· article· en· W3027747692 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy Disher, A. Situ, Chris Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueValue in Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsEVERSANA (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaceboLeverage (statistics)RandomizationInferenceMeta-analysisClinical trialCausal inferenceStatisticsContrast (vision)Bayesian probabilityEconometricsMedicineComputer sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMathematicsArtificial intelligenceInternal medicine

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: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinglow
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
models splitAgreement 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)0.352
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.759
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3520.759
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.024
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.004

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 head0.985
GPT teacher head0.645
Teacher spread0.340 · 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.

Metaresearch

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical · Methods

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueValue in HealthSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207