MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399706167 · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2024.03.2436

PT22 Consistency Between Comparative Efficacy Estimates from Target Trial Emulations and Their Origin Target Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study

2024· article· en· W4399706167 on OpenAlexaff
Kristian Thorlund, L Dron, Paul Arora

Bibliographic record

VenueValue in Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsCascades (Canada)University of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsistency (knowledge bases)EpidemiologyMeta-analysisMedicineComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceInternal 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

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
gemmaMetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (broad)Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysislow
gptMetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.292
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.605
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2920.605
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.038
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.859
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.303 · 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.

MetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (broad)Meta-epidemiology (narrow)

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

Study designMeta-analysis · Other design
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueValue in HealthSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207