MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407132017 · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112389

Rapid reviews methods series: guidance on rapid scoping, mapping and evidence and gap map (‘Big Picture Reviews’)

2025· article· en· W4407132017 on OpenAlex
Fiona Campbell, Anthea Sutton, Danielle Pollock, Chantelle Garritty, Andrea C. Tricco, Lena Schmidt, Hanan Khalil

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeries (stratigraphy)Data scienceComputer scienceInformation retrievalBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scoping, mapping and evidence and gap map reviews (‘Big Picture Reviews’ (BPRs)) are evidence synthesis methods that address broad research questions. They provide an overview of existing evidence, identify gaps in knowledge and priorities for research. Unlike systematic reviews (SRs) of effectiveness, they do not seek to synthesise findings but to provide a description of the evidence. There has been a growth in the production of rapid BPRs to meet commissioners’ and knowledge users’ (KUs) needs for timely outputs. No guidance currently exists for the use of rapid approaches in BPRs, and the purpose of this paper is to address this lack. Rapid reviews include simplifying or omitting a variety of methods; however, the approaches may have varying impacts on processes and findings in different types of reviews and should be done with reference to the standard approaches for that particular methodology. BPRs differ from SRs of effectiveness, in terms of their purpose, addressing a broad research question, rather than a specific question which fits a population, intervention, comparator and outcome (PICO) framework. Developing and refining the research question and search strategy may need more time than in a SR. Search yields are typically larger with a greater proportion of time spent on identifying evidence for inclusion when compared with SRs. They do not involve a synthesis of included studies, so the impact of missing data may have less influence on the rigour of the findings than in SRs of the effect of an intervention where a pooled estimate is reported. This paper addresses these differences, and the implications of rapid approaches to BPRs, with recommendations for practice that aim to increase efficiency while maintaining rigour.

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.

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
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models agreeAgreement 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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.082
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.082
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.479
GPT teacher head0.568
Teacher spread0.088 · 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