MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223940020 · doi:10.1002/cl2.1232

PROTOCOL: Conflict of interest issues when engaging stakeholders in health and healthcare guideline development: a systematic review

2022· review· en· W4223940020 on OpenAlex
Joanne Khabsa, Jennifer Petkovic, Alison Riddle, Lyubov Lytvyn, Olivia Magwood, Pearl Atwere, Pauline Campbell, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Bronwen Merner, Mona Nasser, Stephanie Chang, Alejandra Jaramillo Garcia, Heather Limburg, Jeanne‐Marie Guise, Peter Tugwell, Elie A. Akl

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCampbell Systematic Reviews · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsImpactBruyèreGovernment of CanadaPublic Health Agency of CanadaMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaScottish GovernmentAmerican University of Beirut
KeywordsGuidelineProtocol (science)Health careConflict of interestSystematic reviewPsychologyEngineering ethicsMedicineManagement sciencePolitical scienceAlternative medicineMEDLINEEngineeringLawPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The overall objective of this study is to gather and summarize the existing literature on conflict of interest issues when engaging stakeholders in guideline development.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.914
GPT teacher head0.651
Teacher spread0.263 · 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