MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378903516 · doi:10.3389/ijph.2023.1605763

Certainty of the Global Burden of Disease 2019 Modelled Prevalence Estimates for Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Meta-Epidemiological Study

2023· review· en· W4378903516 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Javier Muñoz Laguna, Milo A. Puhan, Fernando Rodríguez‐Artalejo, Robby De Pauw, Grant M. A. Wyper, Brecht Devleesschauwer, João Vasco Santos, Cesar A. Hincapié

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Public Health · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Cooperation in Science and TechnologySchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungEuropean Centre for Chiropractic Research ExcellenceNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEpidemiologyMedicineRepresentativeness heuristicDisease burdenPublic healthMeta-analysisOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyEnvironmental healthDemographyPopulationStatisticsAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: To describe and assess the risk of bias of the primary input studies that underpinned the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) 2019 modelled prevalence estimates of low back pain (LBP), neck pain (NP), and knee osteoarthritis (OA), from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Spain, and Switzerland. To evaluate the certainty of the GBD modelled prevalence evidence. Methods: Primary studies were identified using the GBD Data Input Sources Tool and their risk of bias was assessed using a validated tool. We rated the certainty of modelled prevalence estimates based on the GRADE Guidelines 30―the GRADE approach for modelled evidence. Results: Seventy-two primary studies (LBP: 67, NP: 2, knee OA: 3) underpinned the GBD estimates. Most studies had limited representativeness of their study populations, used suboptimal case definitions and applied assessment instruments with unknown psychometric properties. The certainty of modelled prevalence estimates was low, mainly due to risk of bias and indirectness. Conclusion: Beyond the risk of bias of primary input studies for LBP, NP, and knee OA in GBD 2019, the certainty of country-specific modelled prevalence estimates still have room for improvement.

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

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: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysislow
gptMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
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)0.169
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.347
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1690.347
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.033
Bibliometrics0.0120.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.301 · 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)

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

Study designMeta-analysis · Systematic 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

Citations31
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Public HealthSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207