MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399092513 · doi:10.1007/s00134-024-07462-z

Methodological considerations in meta-analysis: evaluating RCTs, NRS, and crossover trials for electrical impedance tomography in PEEP titration

2024· letter· en· W4399092513 on OpenAlexaff
Nickjaree Songsangvorn, Arthur S. Slutsky, Karen E. A. Burns, Haibo Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueIntensive Care Medicine · 2024
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsOntario Tobacco Research UnitPublic Health OntarioMuscular Dystrophy CanadaUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrical impedance tomographyMedicineAnesthesiologyPain medicineCrossover studyMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialIntensive care medicineIntensive careMedical physicsTomographyAnesthesiaRadiologyInternal medicinePathologyAlternative medicine

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.361
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.078 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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 abstractno

Explore more

Same venueIntensive Care MedicineSame topicElectrical and Bioimpedance TomographyFrench-language works237,207