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 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)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.139
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.139
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0640.025

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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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