MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3100315275 · doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01516-1

Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING VACCINE Project)

2020· article· en· W3100315275 on OpenAlex
Steven Kwasi Korang, Sophie Juul, Emil Eik Nielsen, Joshua Feinberg, Faiza Siddiqui, Giok Ong, Sarah Louise Klingenberg, Areti Angeliki Veroniki, Fan-Long Bu, Lehana Thabane, Allan Randrup Thomsen, Janus Christian Jakobsen, Christian Gluud

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpactSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCopenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research
KeywordsMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Protocol (science)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Meta-analysisMEDLINEVirologyFamily medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which has rapidly spread worldwide. Several human randomized clinical trials assessing potential vaccines are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living systematic review that continuously assesses the beneficial and harmful effects of all available vaccines for COVID-19. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any vaccine aiming to prevent COVID-19 (including but not limited to messenger RNA; DNA; non-replicating viral vector; replicating viral vector; inactivated virus; protein subunit; dendritic cell; other vaccines) with any comparator (placebo; "active placebo;" no intervention; standard care; an "active" intervention; another vaccine for COVID-19) for participants in all age groups. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality; a diagnosis of COVID-19; and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analyses, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Within-study bias will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approaches will be used to assess certainty of evidence. Observational studies describing harms identified during the search for trials will also be included and described and analyzed separately. DISCUSSION: COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of different vaccines is urgently needed. This living systematic review will regularly inform best practice in vaccine prevention and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020196492.

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.

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)0.396
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.523
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3960.523
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0430.011
Bibliometrics0.0010.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0120.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.848
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.280 · 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