MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210017165 · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1535

Introduction to PRISMA 2020 and implications for research synthesis methodologists

2021· article· en· W3210017165 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew J. Page, David Moher, Joanne E. McKenzie

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Synthesis Methods · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystematic reviewStatement (logic)Computer scienceKey (lock)MEDLINEResearch methodologyData scienceManagement scienceEpistemologyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Systematic reviews should be reported completely and accurately so that users can interpret and appraise the review findings appropriately. In this commentary, we describe key features of a major update of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement-PRISMA 2020-and discuss its implications for research synthesis methodologists.

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)0.501
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.728
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5010.728
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.021
Bibliometrics0.0190.025
Science and technology studies0.0050.017
Scholarly communication0.0200.011
Open science0.0150.015
Research integrity0.0180.059
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.026

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 head0.963
GPT teacher head0.759
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreCommentary

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

Citations256
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Synthesis MethodsSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207