MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313312334 · doi:10.1007/s00167-022-07304-9

A guide to appropriately planning and conducting meta‐analyses—Part 1: indications, assumptions and understanding risk of bias

2022· review· en· W4313312334 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey Kay, Kyle N. Kunze, Ayoosh Pareek, Jari Dahmen, Darren de, Jón Karlsson

Bibliographic record

VenueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisInterpretation (philosophy)Risk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceManagement scienceEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A meta-analysis is the quantitative synthesis of data from two or more individual studies and are as a rule an important method of obtaining a more accurate estimate of the direction and magnitude of a treatment effect. However, it is imperative that the meta-analysis be performed with proper, rigorous methodology to ensure validity of the results and their interpretation. In this article the authors will review the most important questions researchers should consider when planning a meta-analysis to ensure proper indications and methodologies, minimize the risk of bias, and avoid misleading conclusions.

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)0.231
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.538
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2310.538
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.015
Bibliometrics0.0150.012
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0080.004
Research integrity0.0100.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.014

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 head0.948
GPT teacher head0.596
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology ArthroscopySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207