MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4233441473 · doi:10.31222/osf.io/jy37f

Reducing bias and improving transparency in biomedical and health research: A critical overview of the problems, progress so far and suggested next steps

2020· preprint· en· W4233441473 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen H Bradley, Nicholas DeVito, Kelly Lloyd, Georgia C. Richards, Tanja Rombey, Cole Wayant, Peter J. Gill

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)Medical researchRisk analysis (engineering)Management scienceEngineering ethicsComputer scienceBusinessData scienceMedicineEngineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years there has been increasing awareness about problems which have undermined trust in science generally. This review outlines some of the most important issues facing medical research including research culture, lack of transparency, reporting biases and the failure to produce reproducible results. It examines measures which have been instituted to address these problems to date. The paper concludes by proposing three achievable actions which could be readily implemented in medical research to deliver significantly improved transparency and mitigation of bias.

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)0.422
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.449
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4220.449
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.008
Bibliometrics0.0160.016
Science and technology studies0.0050.022
Scholarly communication0.0230.034
Open science0.0050.011
Research integrity0.0160.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.949
GPT teacher head0.625
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews→French-language works237,207→