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 OpenAlexafffund
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

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.

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)0.208
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.373
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2080.373
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.012
Bibliometrics0.0110.013
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0110.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1110.025

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreProtocol

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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCampbell Systematic ReviewsSame topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcareFrench-language works237,207