MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200237261 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)01640-8

Retracted: Pharmacotherapy for adults with overweight and obesity: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2021· review· en· W4200237261 on OpenAlexaff
Qingyang Shi, Yang Wang, Qiukui Hao, Per Olav Vandvik, Gordon Guyatt, Jing Li, Zhe Chen, Shishi Xu, Yanjiao Shen, Long Ge, Feng Sun, Ling Li, Jiajie Yu, Kailei Nong, Xinyu Zou, Siyi Zhu, Cong Wang, Shengzhao Zhang, Zhi Qiao, Zhongyu Jian, Ya Li, Xinyi Zhang, Kerun Chen, Furong Qu, Yuan Wu, Yazhou He, Haoming Tian, Sheyu Li

Post-publication record

NatureRetraction
ReasonConcerns/Issues about Data;Error in Analyses;Error in Methods;Investigation by Journal/Publisher;Investigation by Third Party;Retract and Replace;
Date4/4/2024 0:00
Flagged by OpenAlex?Yes

Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacology and Obesity Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersWest China Hospital, Sichuan University
KeywordsPharmacotherapyMeta-analysisOverweightMedicineObesityMEDLINERandomized controlled trialSystematic reviewInternal medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.022
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.267 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
DomainEvaluation
GenreReview

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

Citations274
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicPharmacology and Obesity TreatmentFrench-language works237,207