MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413966548 · doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-083882

Improving the reporting on health equity in observational research (STROBE-Equity): extension checklist and elaboration

2025· article· en· W4413966548 on OpenAlexafffund
Omar Dewidar, Larissa Shamseer, G. J. Meléndez‐Torres, Elie A. Akl, Jacqueline Ramke, Xiaoqin Wang, Oyekola Oloyede, Taryn Young, Stuart G. Nicholls, Zack Marshall, Michelle Kennedy, Billie-Jo Hardy, Anita Rizvi, Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu, Tamara Rader, Hugh Waddington, Beverley Shea, Miriam Nkangu, Holly Ellingwood, Luke Wolfenden, Janice Tufte, Tanya Horsley, Kevin Pottie, Luis Gabriel Cuervo, Clara Juandó‐Prats, Cindy Feng, Melissa K. Sharp, Julian Little, Ebenezer Owusu‐Addo, Damian Francis, Tamara Kredo, Michael Johnson Mahande, Catherine Chamberlain, Tomás Pantoja, Erik von Elm, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Peter Tugwell, Charles Shey Wiysonge, Sarah Funnell, Janet Jull, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Vivian Welch

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityCochraneHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of SaskatchewanDalhousie UniversityOttawa HospitalCarleton UniversityUniversity of OttawaPublic Health OntarioSt. Michael's HospitalCanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in HealthUniversity of CalgaryImpactLakehead UniversityBruyèreMcMaster UniversityRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsElaborationChecklistObservational studyEquity (law)Computer scienceAccountingMedicinePsychologyBusinessPathologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data on health equity to inform societally relevant evidence based decisions and policy making are lacking in the research literature. Observational studies have the potential to provide data on health equity. Yet, guidance on how to report health equity data and considerations in observational research is inadequate. The STROBE-Equity extension addresses this gap by providing a structured set of criteria to enhance the reporting of health equity data and considerations.

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)0.494
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.667
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4940.667
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.015
Bibliometrics0.0220.013
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0070.015
Research integrity0.0100.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.005

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 head0.377
GPT teacher head0.584
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainReporting
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

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207