MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400120003 · doi:10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100985

Gender should be considered and reported in epidemiology, but why should it be measured?

2024· article· en· W4400120003 on OpenAlexafffund
Karen Messing, Valérie Lederer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Regional Health - Europe · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture
KeywordsEpidemiologyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this issue of the Lancet Regional Health Europe, Ballering et al.1 report on their review of gender composite scores, making a useful distinction between data-driven and theory-driven measures. They come from academic traditions in medicine and their justification is based on the need to raise awareness among practitioners and scientists about the impact of the various complex manifestations of gender on health and care.

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)0.125
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.301
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1250.301
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.019
Scholarly communication0.0100.018
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0100.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.700
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
DomainReporting
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Regional Health - EuropeSame topicSex and Gender in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207