MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391734169 · doi:10.1007/s43630-023-00523-0

A protocol for an overview of systematic reviews to map photodynamic inactivation evidence in different dental specialties

2024· article· en· W4391734169 on OpenAlexaff
Sâmmea Martins Vieira, Ewerton Garcia de Oliveira Mima, Heitor Marques Honório, David Moher, Lara Maria Herrera, Morgana Rodrigues Guimarães, Lívia Nordi Dovigo

Bibliographic record

VenuePhotochemical & Photobiological Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhotodynamic Therapy Research Studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsSystematic reviewProtocol (science)Data extractionMedical physicsMEDLINECritical appraisalMedicineGrey literatureMeta-analysisComputer scienceAlternative medicinePathologyChemistry

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 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)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.117
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.117
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.018
Bibliometrics0.0220.021
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1070.012

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 head0.393
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.120 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreProtocol

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venuePhotochemical & Photobiological SciencesSame topicPhotodynamic Therapy Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207