MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214096147 · doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezab460

Contemporary trends in the level of evidence in general thoracic surgery clinical research

2021· article· en· W3214096147 on OpenAlexaff
Se-In Choe, Ronny Ben-Avi, Housne Begum, Kendra Pearce, Meera Mehta, John Agzarian, Christian Finley, Waël C. Hanna, Forough Farrokhyar, Yaron Shargall

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalEvidence-based medicineAuditReliability (semiconductor)Cardiothoracic surgerySurgeryInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The large volume of scientific publications and the increasing emphasis on high-quality evidence for clinical decision-making present daily challenges to all clinicians, including thoracic surgeons. The objective of this study was to evaluate the contemporary trend in the level of evidence (LOE) for thoracic surgery clinical research. METHODS: All clinical research articles published between January 2010 and December 2017 in 3 major general thoracic surgery journals were reviewed. Five authors independently reviewed the abstracts of each publication and assigned a LOE to each of them using the 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine classification scheme. Data extracted from eligible abstracts included study type, study size, country of primary author and type of study designs. Three auditing processes were conducted to establish working definitions and the process was validated with a research methodologist and 2 senior thoracic surgeons. Intra-class correlation coefficient was calculated to assess inter-rater agreement. Chi-square test and Spearman correlation analysis were then used to compare the LOE between journals and by year of publication. RESULTS: Of 2028 publications reviewed and scored, 29 (1.4%) were graded level I, 75 (3.7%) were graded level II, 471 (23.2%) were graded level III, 1420 (70.2%) were graded level IV and 33 (1.6%) were graded level V (lowest level). Most publications (94.9%) were of lower-level evidence (III-V). There was an overall increasing trend in the lower LOE (P < 0.001). Inter-rater reliability was substantial with 95.5% (95%, confidence interval: 0.95-0.96) level of agreement between reviewers. CONCLUSIONS: General thoracic surgery literature consists mostly of lower LOE studies. The number of lower levels of evidence is dominating the recent publications, potentially indicating a need to increase the commitment to produce and disseminate higher-level evidence in general thoracic surgery.

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)0.199
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.514
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1990.514
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0320.030
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0200.011
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0050.005
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 head0.976
GPT teacher head0.659
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic SurgerySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207