MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415219641 · doi:10.1002/cesm.70054

Health Equity in Systematic Reviews: A Tutorial—Part 2 Implementing Health Equity Throughout Your Methods

2025· article· en· W4415219641 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Petkovic, Jordi Pardo Pardo, Vivian Welch, Omar Dewidar, Lara Maxwell, Andrea Darzi, Tamara Lotfi, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Kevin Pottie, Peter Tugwell

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalImpactMcMaster UniversityDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth equityEquity (law)Health policyHealth insuranceSocial determinants of healthHealth promotion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the second and final tutorial in a series on health equity. It provides detailed guidance for considering health equity in systematic reviews of interventions. We will explain how to include and report health equity in all remaining sections of the review.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.836
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.592
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.8360.592
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.831
GPT teacher head0.727
Teacher spread0.105 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Evidence Synthesis and MethodsSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207