MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293918656 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2010358/v1

Methodological review of NMA bias concepts provides groundwork for the development of a list of concepts for potential inclusion in a new risk of bias tool for network meta-analysis (RoB NMA Tool)

2022· preprint· en· W4293918656 on OpenAlexafffund
Carole Lunny, Areti-Angeliki Veroniki, Julian P. T. Higgins, Sofia Dias, Brian Hutton, James M Wright, Ian R. White, Penny Whiting, Andrea C. Tricco

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsInnovative Research Group (Canada)Ottawa HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration WestMedical Research CouncilDepartment of Health and Social CareUniversity of BristolCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNIHR Bristol Biomedical Research CentreUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsPopularityPublication biasQuality (philosophy)Systematic reviewMEDLINEQuality of evidenceMeta-analysisComputer scienceInclusion (mineral)PsychologyMedicineSocial psychologyEpistemology

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.578
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.328
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5780.328
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.021
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.932
GPT teacher head0.657
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

MetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (broad)

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207