MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366386740 · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112136

Implementing hierarchical network meta-analysis incorporating exchangeable dose effects compared to standard hierarchical network meta-analysis

2023· article· en· W4366386740 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Watt, Mark Hofmeister, Cinzia Del Giovane, Rebecca Turner, Andrea C. Tricco, Dimitris Mavridis, Sharon E. Straus, Areti Angeliki Veroniki

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ evidence-based medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of CalgarySt. Michael's Hospital
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsMeta-analysisNetwork analysisComputer scienceMultilevel modelMedicineInternal medicineEngineeringMachine learning

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
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelingmedium
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
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)0.087
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.246
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0870.246
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.017
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.807
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.252 · 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.

Metaresearch

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

Study designSimulation or modeling · Theoretical or conceptual
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueBMJ evidence-based medicineSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207