Additional file 1 of Periodontal status and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 1. Supplementary data to include: Supp Table 1: detailed search strategy; Supp Table 2: details of excluded studies; Supp Table 3: Quality assessment of observational studies using Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS): 3A - adapted NOS for cross-sectional studies, 3B- NOS for case-control studies and 3C NOS for cohort studies. The domains covered by the scale included selection, comparability, outcomes, and exposure. Each asterisk represents whether the individual criterion within the subsection was fulfilled. A maximum of 9 can be assigned for each study using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. A maximum score of 10 can be assigned for the adapted Newcastle Ottawa Scale for cross sectional studies. Supp Figure 1: Quality assessment of intervention studies using Cochrane RoB 2- tool and Supp Figure 2: Risk of bias assessment of non-randomised intervention studies using ROBINS-I tool.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.869 | 0.064 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".