MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404620563 · doi:10.1186/s13643-024-02699-7

Computer-assisted screening in systematic evidence synthesis requires robust and well-evaluated stopping criteria

2024· letter· en· W4404620563 on OpenAlexaff
Max Callaghan, Finn Müller-Hansen, Melissa Bond, Candyce Hamel, Declan Devane, Wojciech Kusa, Alison O’Mara-Eves, René Spijker, Mark Stevenson, Claire Stansfield, James Thomas, Jan C. Minx

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2024
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersEuropean CommissionWellcome Trust
KeywordsMedicineSystematic reviewEvidence-based medicineMedical physicsMEDLINEAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Author: Callaghan, Max et al.; Genre: Journal Article; Finally published : 2024; Title: Computer-assisted screening in systematic evidence synthesis requires robust and well-evaluated stopping criteria

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
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

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207