Additional file 1 of Comparison of effect between nasobiliary drainage and biliary stenting in malignant biliary obstruction: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 1: Appendix file 1. the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2009 Checklist. Appendix file 2. the Risk of bias in the included retrospective cohort studies (by the Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment tool). Appendix file 3. Meta-Analysis Results of All Available Studies in Measured Outcomes. Appendix file 4. the forest map of the incidence of incidence of preoperative cholangitis. Appendix file 5. the forest map of the incidence of incidence of preoperative pancreatitis. Appendix file 6. the forest map of the incidence of stent dysfunction rate. Appendix file 7. the forest map of the incidence of morbidity. Appendix file 8. the forest map of the incidence of Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula (POPF). Appendix file 9. Assessment of risk of bias. Appendix file 10. PRISMA 2009 flow diagram of literature screening. Appendix file 11. Basic characteristics and quality assessment of enrolled documents
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.200 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".