MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409920683 · doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-081904

Core GRADE 2: choosing the target of certainty rating and assessing imprecision

2025· article· en· W4409920683 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon Guyatt, Linan Zeng, Romina Brignardello‐Petersen, Manya Prasad, Hans de Beer, M. Hassan Murad, Alfonso Iorio, Arnav Agarwal, Liang Yao, Thomas Agoritsas, Jamie Rylance, Reem A. Mustafa, Per Olav Vandvik, Prashanti Eachempati, Chunjuan Zhai, Lingli Zhang, Víctor M. Montori, Monica Hultcrantz

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertaintyComputer scienceCore (optical fiber)MedicineInformation retrievalMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This second article in a seven part series presents the Core GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to deciding on the target of the certainty rating, and decisions about rating down certainty of evidence due to imprecision. Core GRADE users assess if the true underlying treatment effect is important or not in relation to the minimal important difference (MID) or, alternatively, if a true underlying treatment effect exists. The location of the point estimate of effect in relation to the chosen threshold determines the target. For instance, using the MID thresholds, a point estimate greater than the MID suggests an important effect and less than the MID, an unimportant or little to no effect. Users then rate down for imprecision if the 95% confidence interval crosses the MID for benefit or harm.

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)0.332
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.746
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3320.746
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.011
Bibliometrics0.0170.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0130.007
Open science0.0070.009
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.005

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.281 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations33
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207