MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388304320 · doi:10.1016/j.euf.2023.10.018

How To Read a Network Meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4388304320 on OpenAlexaff
Angie Puerto Niño, Romina Brignardello‐Petersen

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology Focus · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicinePsychological interventionSystematic reviewMEDLINEEvidence-based medicineMedical physicsAlternative medicineInternal medicineNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Network meta-analysis (NMA) expands upon traditional meta-analysis by integrating three or more interventions. This allows comparing interventions using evidence from trials that have compared pairs of interventions directly, and indirect evidence through common comparators. We provide an overview of NMA concepts and considerations when interpreting results from a systematic review with a NMA and applying them to clinical practice. PATIENT SUMMARY: Network meta-analysis is a statistical tool that allows researchers to compare multiple treatments for a medical condition at once, even when treatments have not been compared to each other in research studies. This mini-review explains how to read a network meta-analysis and apply its results in patient care.

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)0.234
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2340.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0480.055
Bibliometrics0.0030.018
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0090.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.169

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 head0.895
GPT teacher head0.549
Teacher spread0.346 · 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
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

Citations29
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Urology FocusSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207