MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161745299 · doi:10.1111/jebm.12427

The ROBINS‐I and the NOS had similar reliability but differed in applicability: A random sampling observational studies of systematic reviews/meta‐analysis

2021· review· en· W3161745299 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evidence-Based Medicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyMeta-analysisStatisticsStatisticReliability (semiconductor)MedicineSystematic reviewMEDLINEMathematicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of evidence on the usage of the quality assessment tool-the Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I). This article aimed to measure the reliability, criterion validity, and feasibility of the ROBINS-I and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). METHODS: A sample of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of observational studies were selected from Medline (2013-2017) and assessed by two reviewers using ROBINS-I and the NOS. We reported on reliability in terms of the first-order agreement coefficient (AC1) statistic. Correlation coefficient statistic was used to explore the criterion validity of the ROBINS-I. We compared the feasibility of the ROBINS-I and NOS by recording the time to complete an assessment and the instances where assessing was difficult. RESULTS: Five systematic reviews containing 41 cohort studies were finally included. Interobserver agreement on the individual domain of the ROBINS-I as well as the NOS was substantial with a mean AC1 statistic of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.50-0.83) and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.65-0.81), respectively. The criterion validity of the ROBNS-I was moderate (K = 0.52) against NOS. The time in assessing a single study by ROBINS-I varied from 7 hours initially to 3 hours compared with 30 minutes for the NOS. Both reviewers rated "bias due to departure from the intended interventions" the most time-consuming domain in the ROBINS-I, items in the NOS were equal. CONCLUSIONS: The ROBINS-I and the NOS seem to provide the same reliability but vary in applicability. The over-complicated feature of ROBINS-I may limit its usage and a simplified version is needed.

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.

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: Methods · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.572
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.692
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5720.692
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0660.021
Bibliometrics0.0010.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.968
GPT teacher head0.635
Teacher spread0.333 · 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