MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088801289 · doi:10.1016/s2352-3026(20)30293-3

Evaluating prophylactic heparin in ambulatory patients with solid tumours: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3088801289 on OpenAlexafffund
Holger J. Schünemann, Matthew Ventresca, Mark Crowther, Matthias Briel, Qi Zhou, Simon Noble, Fergus Macbeth, Gareth Griffiths, David García, Gary H. Lyman, Marcello Di Nisio, Alfonso Iorio, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Ignacio Neumann, Nick van Es, Melissa Brouwers, Gordon Guyatt, Michael B. Streiff, Maura Marcucci, Tejan Baldeh, Iván D. Flórez, Özlem Gürünlü Alma, Ziad Solh, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Lara A Kahale, Walter Ageno, George Bozas, Harry R. Büller, B Lebeau, Ramón Lecumberri, Charles L. Loprinzi, Robert D. McBane, Kostandinos Sideras, Anthony Maraveyas, Uwe Pelzer, James Perry, Clara Klerk, Giancarlo Agnelli, Elie A. Akl

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Haematology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreOntario Clinical Oncology GroupWestern UniversityUniversity of OttawaMcMaster UniversityImpactSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonCochrane
FundersUniversidad de NavarraCharité – Universitätsmedizin BerlinCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSunnybrook Research InstituteCancer Research UKGlaxoSmithKlineMarie CurieMayo Clinic
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trialPlaceboMEDLINEAmbulatoryInternal medicineRelative riskIntensive care medicineConfidence intervalAlternative 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

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.495
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.026 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet HaematologySame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207