MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3028464929 · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2020.04.1154

PNS154 THE PRISMA 2020 STATEMENT: DEVELOPMENT OF AND KEY CHANGES IN AN UPDATED GUIDELINE FOR REPORTING SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES

2020· article· en· W3028464929 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Tetzlaff, Matthew J. Page, David Moher

Bibliographic record

VenueValue in Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystematic reviewChecklistGuidelineStakeholderMEDLINEStatement (logic)Management scienceMedicineMedical educationComputer sciencePsychologyPolitical sciencePublic relationsEngineeringPathology

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
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Reporting · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Reporting · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
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)0.348
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.682
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3480.682
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.032
Bibliometrics0.0170.024
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0170.008
Open science0.0140.014
Research integrity0.0190.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.046

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 head0.938
GPT teacher head0.623
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designNot applicable · Other design
DomainReporting
GenreMethods

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

Citations73
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

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