MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408298481 · doi:10.1186/s12874-025-02499-0

Ranking of treatments in network meta-analysis: incorporating minimally important differences

2025· article· en· W4408298481 on OpenAlexaff
Tristan Curteis, Augustine Wigle, Christopher J. Michaels, Adriani Nikolakopoulou

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Research Methodology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRanking (information retrieval)StatisticsBayesian networkMathematicsComputer scienceMedicineMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In network meta-analysis (NMA), the magnitude of difference between treatment effects is typically ignored in the calculation of ranking metrics, such as probability best and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRAs). This leads to treatment rankings which may not reflect clinically meaningful differences. Minimally important differences (MIDs) represent the smallest value in a given outcome that is considered by patients or clinicians to represent a meaningful difference between treatments. There is a lack of literature on how MIDs can be incorporated into common NMA ranking metrics such as SUCRAs to give more clinically oriented treatment rankings. METHODS: th best, and MID-adjusted SUCRA values. Since adjustment for MIDs allows for ties between treatments in a network, methods for handling ties in ranking are discussed, with it shown that the midpoint method for handling ties retains the property that the average value of all SUCRA values in a network is one half. Comparability of MID-adjusted P-scores and MID-adjusted SUCRA values is discussed, and a Bayesian software implementation of the MID-adjusted ranking metrics is provided. RESULTS: Two real-world applications of MID-adjusted ranking metrics are presented to illustrate their use. Specifically, NMAs are conducted based on published networks on treatments for diabetes and Parkinson's disease. To present the results, MIDs are selected from relevant literature to interpret MID-adjusted ranking metrics for these networks. CONCLUSIONS: Failure to consider MIDs when ranking treatments can lead to ranking metrics which are not clinically relevant. Our proposed MID-adjusted Bayesian ranking metrics address this challenge. Further, we show that the use of the midpoint method for addressing ties ensures comparability between standard ranking metrics and MID-adjusted ranking metrics. The methods are easily applied in a Bayesian framework using the R package mid.nma.rank.

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)0.139
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.327
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1390.327
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.011
Bibliometrics0.0120.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.973
GPT teacher head0.712
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical Research MethodologySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207