MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410469160 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0323834

Initial validity and reliability testing of the SGBA-5

2025· article· en· W4410469160 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Andrew Putman, Adam G. Cole, Shilpa Dogra

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Reliability engineeringComputer sciencePhysicsEngineeringThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A growing body of research indicates that sex (biological) and gender (sociocultural) influence health through a variety of distinct mechanisms. Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis (SGBA) techniques could examine these influences, however, there is a lack of nuanced and easily implementable measurement tools for health research. To address this gap, we created the Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis Tool - 5 item (SGBA-5). OBJECTIVES: This research aims to assess the validity and reliability of the SGBA-5 for use in health sciences research where sex or gender are not primary variables of interest. METHODS: A Delphi consensus study was conducted with Canadian researchers (n = 14). The Delphi experts rated the validity of each SGBA-5 item on a 5-point Likert scale each round, receiving summary statistics of other experts' responses after the first round. A conservative threshold for consensus agreement (75% rating an item 4+ of 5) was used given the novelty of this scale's items. Reliability was assessed through a two-armed test-retest study. The university student arm (n = 89) was conducted in-person (on paper), and the older adult arm (n = 71) was conducted online (digitally). RESULTS: The Delphi study ended after three rounds; experts reached consensus agreement on the validity of the biological sex item of the SGBA-5 (93%) and consensus non-agreement on each of the gendered aspect of health items (identity: 64%, expression: 64%, roles: 50%, relations: 57%). Both the student arm (sex item: [Formula: see text], gendered items: [Formula: see text]) and the older adult arm (sex item: [Formula: see text], gendered items: [Formula: see text]) of the test-retest study indicated that all items were reliable. CONCLUSIONS: The novel SGBA-5 tool demonstrated reliability across all scale items and validity of the biological sex item. The gendered aspects of health items may be valid. Future research can further develop the SGBA-5 as a tool for use in health research.

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)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.117
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.117
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.260
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.099 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicSex and Gender in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207