MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392647723 · doi:10.1016/j.focus.2024.100223

Putting Meta-Analysis Findings in Proper Perspective: Comment on “The Effects of Nonpharmaceutical Interventions on COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations, and Mortality: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis”

2024· article· en· W4392647723 on OpenAlexaff
Ari R. Joffe, Roy Eappen, Chris Milburn, M Fulford, Neil Rau

Bibliographic record

VenueAJPM Focus · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHamilton General HospitalDalhousie UniversityMcGill UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisPerspective (graphical)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Psychological interventionMedicine2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSystematic reviewSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)MEDLINEPsychologyInternal medicineComputer scienceBiologyPsychiatryVirologyOutbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peters and Farhadloo1 concluded that their meta-analysis “found that the nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) studied were associated with reduced rates of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths” during the first coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) wave. We believe that this conclusion was not warranted for 3 reasons.

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 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)0.093
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.368
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0930.368
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.011
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0100.003
Research integrity0.0350.038
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.632
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.070 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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