MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398792297 · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2024.04.054

Factors Associated With Loss to Follow-Up in Surgical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4398792297 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Walker, Woo Jin Choi, Tiago Ribeiro, R. Habib, Alice Zhu, Chunyi Tan, Evan Chung Bui, Bruno R. da Costa, Paul J. Karanicolas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Surgical Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's HospitalPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicineSystematic reviewMEDLINEInternal medicineBiology

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysislow
gptMetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Domain: Methods · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysislow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.714
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.304
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7140.304
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.1240.046
Bibliometrics0.0090.029
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.000
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.965
GPT teacher head0.694
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Meta-epidemiology (broad)Metaresearch

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designMeta-analysis
DomainMethods
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Surgical ResearchSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsCategoryMeta-epidemiology (broad)French-language works237,207