MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6908790757 · doi:10.3205/25ebm031

A network meta-analysis using individual participant data – methodological approach and experiences gained

2025· article· en· W6908790757 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGerman Medical Science (German Research Foundation) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Studies and History
Canadian institutionsCochrane
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
KeywordsData collectionParticipant observationCovariateQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/research question: Network meta-analysis (NMA) enables the simultaneous comparison of multiple interventions, while individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD) allows to unify definitions and analyses across studies as well as to account for participant-level covariates that might [for full text, please go to the a.m. URL]

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)0.240
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.448
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2400.448
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.007
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.805
GPT teacher head0.609
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGerman Medical Science (German Research Foundation)Same topicAsian Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207