MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367848592 · doi:10.1136/bmj-2022-073538

Transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models for individual prognosis or diagnosis: checklist for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (TRIPOD-SRMA)

2023· article· en· W4367848592 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kym I E Snell, Brooke Levis, Johanna AAG Damen, Paula Dhiman, Thomas P. A. Debray, Lotty Hooft, Johannes B. Reitsma, Karel G.M. Moons, Gary S. Collins, Richard D Riley

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilKU LeuvenUniversiteit MaastrichtUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillUniversiteit UtrechtUniversity of OxfordUniversity of LeicesterDalhousie UniversityUniversity of CambridgeCancer Research UKKeele UniversityMonash UniversityVanderbilt UniversityAmsterdam University Medical CentersNeuroscience Research AustraliaUniversity of New South WalesCleveland ClinicBrigham and Women's Hospital
KeywordsChecklistSystematic reviewMeta-analysisComputer sciencePredictive modellingGuidelineTripod (photography)Field (mathematics)MEDLINEData scienceData miningArtificial intelligenceMedicineMachine learningPsychologyPathologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most clinical specialties have a plethora of studies that develop or validate one or more prediction models, for example, to inform diagnosis or prognosis. Having many prediction model studies in a particular clinical field motivates the need for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, to evaluate and summarise the overall evidence available from prediction model studies, in particular about the predictive performance of existing models. Such reviews are fast emerging, and should be reported completely, transparently, and accurately. To help ensure this type of reporting, this article describes a new reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of prediction model research.

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 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)0.255
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.228
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2550.228
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.948
GPT teacher head0.619
Teacher spread0.329 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations156
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207