MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Longitudinal Lung Function Measurements in Observational Studies: A Systematic Review of Methodological Factors

2023· review· en· W4367608355 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Moinuddin, H. Fakhri, Rajesh R. Shrestha, Ezzah Inayat, An‐Chang Shi, Suleman Tariq, Jian‐Gong Ma, M. Duong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyLung functionComputer scienceFunction (biology)Systematic reviewMedicineStatisticsLungMEDLINEMathematicsInternal medicineBiologyEvolutionary biology

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

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)0.075
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.235
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0750.235
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.022
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.751
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.206 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research→French-language works237,207→