MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210406560 · doi:10.1016/j.msksp.2021.102355

Corrigendum to “What is the diagnostic accuracy of red flags related to cauda equina syndrome (CES), when compared to Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)? A systematic review” [Musculoskeletal Science and Practice 42 (2019) 125–133]

2021· erratum· en· W4210406560 on OpenAlexaff
Nathalie Dionne, Abiodun Adefolarin, Dena Kunzelman, Nitin Trehan, Laura Finucane, Lenerdene Levesque, David M. Walton, Jackie Sadi

Bibliographic record

VenueMusculoskeletal Science and Practice · 2021
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingCauda equina syndromeFLAGS registerRadiologyMedical physicsPhysical therapyComputer 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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.225
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.225
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1140.029

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.309 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueMusculoskeletal Science and PracticeSame topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207