MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3099906708 · doi:10.1136/bmj.m3900

GRADE approach to drawing conclusions from a network meta-analysis using a minimally contextualised framework

2020· article· en· W3099906708 on OpenAlexaff
Romina Brignardello‐Petersen, Iván D. Flórez, Ariel Izcovich, Nancy Santesso, Glen Hazlewood, Waleed Alhazanni, Juan José Yepes-Núñez, George Tomlinson, Holger J. Schünemann, Gordon Guyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityUniversity Health NetworkImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrading (engineering)Psychological interventionCertaintyOutcome (game theory)Computer scienceIntervention (counseling)Meta-analysisValue (mathematics)PsychologyManagement scienceMedicineMachine learningMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Network meta-analyses (NMA) rarely establish that one intervention is better than all others; reviewers should group interventions in categories, from the most to the least effective or the least to the most harmful This article describes GRADE guidance on how to draw conclusions from NMA for one outcome using a transparent, straightforward, minimally contextualised approach that focuses on effect estimates and evidence certainty to classify interventions in groups from the most to the least effective or harmful NMA GRADE users should use the new approach to ensure appropriate, informative conclusions that clinicians can easily understand on 15 July

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 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)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.011
Bibliometrics0.0000.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.860
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
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

Citations313
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207