MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389569015 · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1686

<scp>metamedian</scp>: An R package for meta‐analyzing studies reporting medians

2023· review· en· W4389569015 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Synthesis Methods · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMeta-analysisComputer scienceSample size determinationMedianSoftwareSample (material)Outcome (game theory)StatisticsData scienceMedicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When performing an aggregate data meta-analysis of a continuous outcome, researchers often come across primary studies that report the sample median of the outcome. However, standard meta-analytic methods typically cannot be directly applied in this setting. In recent years, there has been substantial development in statistical methods to incorporate primary studies reporting sample medians in meta-analysis, yet there are currently no comprehensive software tools implementing these methods. In this paper, we present the metamedian R package, a freely available and open-source software tool for meta-analyzing primary studies that report sample medians. We summarize the main features of the software and illustrate its application through real data examples involving risk factors for a severe course of COVID-19.

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.

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)0.900
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.972
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Science and technology studies, 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.9000.972
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0560.028
Bibliometrics0.0070.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0100.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.004

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 head0.990
GPT teacher head0.793
Teacher spread0.197 · 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