Systematic review of homeopathic basic research on animal models: the aquatic animals project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systematic reviews are an important approach for identifying and mapping key developments in a given research field [1]. To synthesize the evidence, all the existing literature must be identified and categorized to provide a foundation for future systematic reviews and meta-analyses [2]. In the past few years, research into homeopathy's clinical effectiveness and biological effects has increased, broadening the evidence base of this practice. Synthesizing this evidence is an ongoing task. A scoping review contributes to this task as part of a larger project to systematically and comparably cover the entire research field of homeopathic basic research. In this umbrella project, a final scoping review will focus on animal models in basic homeopathic research, providing an overview of this broad research field. More specifically, one arm of the study will be a systematic review on aquatic animal models used in basic research on homeopathy. It will comply with the PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines. The quality of the literature will be analyzed in different steps. First, a Manuscript Information Score (MIS, maximum score of 10) will be used to assess whether the reporting of the experiments was adequate. Second, publications with an MIS ≥ 5 are further analyzed for appropriate control and statistics, as described in [3]. From the resulting high-quality literature on aquatic animal models, the data extraction will compile the main current results. Moreover, it will be the basis for further analyses on environmental homeopathy. Keywords: Systematic review, animal models, aquatic animals, homeopathy, basic 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 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 | 0.092 | 0.198 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".