MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377094789 · doi:10.1038/s41582-023-00808-z

Global synergistic actions to improve brain health for human development

2023· review· en· W4377094789 on OpenAlexaff
Mayowa Owolabi, Matilde Leonardi, Claudio L. Bassetti, Joke Jaarsma, Tadeusz Hawrot, Akintomiwa Makanjuola, Rajinder K. Dhamija, Wuwei Feng, Volker Straub, Jennifer Camaradou, David W. Dodick, Rosita Sunna, Bindu Menon, Claire Wright, Chris Lynch, Antonella Santuccione Chadha, Maria Teresa Ferretti, Anna Dé, Coriene E. Catsman‐Berrevoets, Muthoni Gichu, Cristina Tassorelli, David Oliver, Walter Paulus, Augustina Charway‐Felli, Kevin Rostásy, Valery L. Feigin, Audrey Craven, Elizabeth Cunningham, Orla Galvin, Alexandra Heumber Perry, Ericka L. Fink, Peer Baneke, Anne Helme, Joanna Laurson-Doube, Marco T. Medina, Juan David Roa, Birgit Högl, Allan O’Bryan, Claudia Trenkwalder, Jo M. Wilmshurst, Rufus Akinyemi, Joseph Yaria, David C. Good, Volker Hoemberg, Paul Boon, Samuel Wiebe, J. Helen Cross, Magali Haas, Inez Jabalpurwala, Marijeta Mojasevic, Mónica Di Luca, Paola Barbarino, Stéphanie Clarke, Sameer M. Zuberi, Paul Olowoyo, Ayomide Owolabi, Nelson M. Oyesiku, Pia C. Sundgren, Bo Norrving, Surjo R. Soekadar, Pieter A. van Doorn, Richard Lewis, Tom Solomon, Franco Servadei

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Reviews Neurology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Human Genome Research InstituteEinstein Stiftung BerlinBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsGlobal healthMedicinePromotion (chess)Health promotionHealth careAction planPopulationBusinessPolitical scienceNursingPublic healthEnvironmental healthManagement

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations113
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNature Reviews NeurologySame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207