Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Heterogeneity assessment is critical in meta-analysis, as it determines the appropriateness of combining studies and affects result reliability. Cochran’s Q is the traditional test, nevertheless, it has low statistical power, so many researchers resort to using heterogeneity measures to quantify the heterogeneity. Aim: This article aims to compare the performance of the most commonly used heterogeneity measures through simulation. Materials and Methods: We compared the performance of four heterogeneity measures (, , , H) across various homogeneous and heterogeneous patient-event probabilities [], various sample sizes (n) and number of studies (k), using RMSE (Root mean squared error) and BIAS values in simulation scenarios. Additionally, Cochran’s Q Type-I error rate and power were evaluated using the same simulation scenarios. Results: and H outperformed other measures in large samples, while , and were preferable for small studies. Conclusion: Researchers can use the simulation results from this study to select an appropriate heterogeneity measure for their meta-analysis work. This approach is expected to prevent time loss due to unnecessary subgroup analyses in situations where heterogeneity appears to be present but is actually absent.
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
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Simulation or modeling | high |
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Simulation or modeling | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.351 | 0.549 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".