MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415688907 · doi:10.1002/cesm.70055

Health Equity in Systematic Reviews: A Tutorial—Part 1 Getting Started With Health Equity in Your Review

2025· article· en· W4415688907 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 HospitalDalhousie UniversityMcMaster UniversityImpactThinkpath Engineering Services (Canada)BruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth equityEquity (law)Health policyHealth promotionSocial determinants of healthHealth for allEquity risk

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This tutorial focuses on how to get started with considering health equity in systematic reviews of interventions. We will explain why health equity should be considered, how to frame your question, and which interest-holders to engage. This is the first tutorial in a series on health equity. The second tutorial focuses on implementing health equity methods in your 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)0.711
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.484
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7110.484
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.770
GPT teacher head0.673
Teacher spread0.097 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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