MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3147021061 · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005413

Identification and inclusion of gender factors in retrospective cohort studies: the GOING-FWD framework

2021· review· en· W3147021061 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Valeria Raparelli, Colleen M. Norris, Uri Bender, María Trinidad Herrero, Alexandra Kautzky‐Willer, Karolina Kublickiene, Khaled El Emam, Louise Pilote

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Global Health · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of OttawaMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of Alberta
FundersInstitute of Gender and HealthCanadian Institutes of Health Research“la Caixa” FoundationAustrian Science FundSvenska Forskningsrådet FormasVetenskapsrådetMcGill University
KeywordsIdentification (biology)PsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men and gender diverse people. Gender-related factors are seldom assessed as determinants of health outcomes, despite their powerful contribution. The Gender Outcomes INternational Group: to Further Well-being Development (GOING-FWD) project developed a standard five-step methodology applicable to retrospectively identify gender-related factors and assess their relationship to outcomes across selected cohorts of non-communicable chronic diseases from Austria, Canada, Spain, Sweden. Step 1 (identification of gender-related variables): Based on the gender framework of the Women Health Research Network (ie, identity, role, relations and institutionalised gender), and available literature for a certain disease, an optimal 'wish-list' of gender-related variables was created and discussed by experts. Step 2 (definition of outcomes): Data dictionaries were screened for clinical and patient-relevant outcomes, using the International Consortium for Health Outcome Measurement framework. Step 3 (building of feasible final list): a cross-validation between variables per database and the 'wish-list' was performed. Step 4 (retrospective data harmonisation): The harmonisation potential of variables was evaluated. Step 5 (definition of data structure and analysis): The following analytic strategies were identified: (1) local analysis of data not transferable followed by a meta-analysis combining study-level estimates; (2) centrally performed federated analysis of data, with the individual-level participant data remaining on local servers; (3) synthesising the data locally and performing a pooled analysis on the synthetic data and (4) central analysis of pooled transferable data. The application of the GOING-FWD multistep approach can help guide investigators to analyse gender and its impact on outcomes in previously collected data.

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 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)0.669
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.668
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6690.668
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.016
Bibliometrics0.0210.015
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0100.010
Open science0.0100.016
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.356 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations54
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Global HealthSame topicSex and Gender in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207