MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4211203467 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-104497/v1

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of 32 Pharmacological Interventions Recommended by Guidelines for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis Combining 66 Trials

2020· review· en· W4211203467 on OpenAlexaff
Shanshan Wu, Qingxin Zhou, Xueyang Zeng, Jingxue Zhang, Zhirong Yang, Qingqing Yang, Zilu Zhang, Yahong Chen, Feng Sun, Siyan Zhan

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersPeking UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMeta-analysisCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Psychological interventionSystematic reviewMedicinePsychologyManagement scienceMEDLINEEngineeringPolitical sciencePsychiatryInternal medicine

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.046
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.828
GPT teacher head0.715
Teacher spread0.113 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies→French-language works237,207→