MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392058114 · doi:10.11124/jbies-23-00463

Common tool structures and approaches to risk of bias assessment: implications for systematic reviewers

2024· review· en· W4392058114 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Stone, Jo Leonardi‐Bee, Timothy Hugh Barker, Kim Sears, Miloslav Klugar, Zachary Munn, Edoardo Aromataris

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystematic reviewInterpretation (philosophy)Risk assessmentPsychologyComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)MEDLINEMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are numerous tools available to assess the risk of bias in individual studies in a systematic review. These tools have different structures, including scales and checklists, which may or may not separate their items by domains. There are also various approaches and guides for the process, scoring, and interpretation of risk of bias assessments, such as value judgments, quality scores, and relative ranks. The objective of this commentary, which is part of the JBI Series on Risk of Bias, is to discuss some of the distinctions among different tool structures and approaches to risk of bias assessment and the implications of these approaches for systematic reviewers.

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)0.159
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.265
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1590.265
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.804
GPT teacher head0.565
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207