Understanding network meta-analysis methodology for the ophthalmologist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Over the past decade, the number of studies published using network meta-analyses (NMAs) has rapidly increased, and there have been continued advancements to further advance this analysis approach. Due to the fast moving and changing landscape in the infancy of NMA methodology, there is a lack of consistency and standardization for this approach. This article aims to summarize the crucial components of an NMA for both future readers, and for potential NMA authors. RECENT FINDINGS: Key components of NMAs include, but are not limited to, reporting the proposed analysis methods, assessment of risk of bias within the included studies, reporting the overall quality of the available evidence, and defining the parameters in which the results will be presented. Although NMA allows for a comprehensive evaluation of all available treatment options for a given condition, we believe that there is importance in ensuring clear understanding and appropriate interpretation of results to inform clinical practice. SUMMARY: While many components of NMA mirror those of traditional pairwise meta-analysis, there are many novel methodologies that are specific to this approach. It is imperative that future NMAs follow guidance from key methodology groups, as these provide valuable tools for conducting and reporting NMAs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".