MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6927175633 · doi:10.3205/18ebm045

Absolute Effekte auf der Basis von gepoolten Hazard ratios: eine Analyse von mehr als 500 systematischen Übersichtsarbeiten im Krebsbereich

2018· article· de· W6927175633 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGerman Medical Science (German Research Foundation) · 2018
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsCochrane
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHazardIntervention (counseling)Hazard ratio

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hintergrund: Überlebenszeitanalysen werden verwendet, um die Dauer der Zeit bis zu einem bestimmten Ereignis zu beschreiben, die abgeleiteten Effekte als Hazard Ratios (HR) dargestellt. Der „Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR)“-Leitfaden von Cochrane[zum vollständigen Text gelangen Sie über die oben angegebene 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)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.196
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.196
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.011
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 designMeta-analysis
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGerman Medical Science (German Research Foundation)Same topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207