MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4323536717 · doi:10.1101/2023.03.05.23286821

The impact of blinding on trial results: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4323536717 on OpenAlexaff
Tyler Pitre, Sarah Kirsh, Tanvir Jassal, Mason Anderson, Adelia Padoan, Alexander Xiang, Jasmine Mah, Dena Zeraatkar

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsImpactDalhousie UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlindingMeta-analysisPublication biasMedicineRandomized controlled trialSystematic reviewMEDLINEOdds ratioStrictly standardized mean differenceClinical trialInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysishigh
gptMetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (narrow)Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Domain: Methods · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysishigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.284
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.497
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2840.497
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0300.054
Bibliometrics0.0150.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.010
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.907
GPT teacher head0.632
Teacher spread0.276 · 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)Meta-epidemiology (narrow)

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

Study designMeta-analysis
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical · Review

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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