MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6958141033 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13023323

Additional file 1 of Effect of antiviral therapy on the outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients with herpes simplex virus detected in the respiratory tract: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· article· en· W6958141033 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHerpesvirus Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComparabilityPopulationCohortRandomized controlled trialSelection biasMissing dataMatching (statistics)Cohort studyIntensive care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additional file 1: Supplementary Table 1. Literature search terms. Supplementary Table 2. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) assessing the quality of the individual studies included in the meta-analysis. Footnotes: 1 The main outcome was in-hospital overall mortality. 2 Only a few were patients included. Comparability cannot be assessed. Selection. 1) Representativeness of the exposed cohort: a) truly representative of intensive care patients*, b) somewhat representative of the average intensive care patient *, c) selective group of patients at the ICU only, d) no description of the derivation of the cohort. 2) Selection of the non-exposed cohort: a) drawn from the same population as the exposed cohort *, b) drawn from a different source, c) no description of the derivation of the non-exposed cohort. 3) Ascertainment of exposure: a) secure record and rated as appropriate if diagnosis was based on PCR results or culture from bronchoalveolar lavage or swaps* b) structured interview, c) written self-report, d) no descriptio. 4) Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study: a) yes *, b) no. Comparabilit. 1) Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis; a) study controls for the most important factor, such as age, gender, comorbidities *, b) ** Rated as appropriate with ** when propensity score matching or a prospective randomized trial was performed. Outcome. 1) Assessment of outcome; a) independent blind assessment *, b) record linkage *, c) self-reported, d) no descriptio. 2) Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur? a) yes (in hospital mortality) *, b) no. 3) Adequacy of follow up of cohorts, a) complete follow up - all subjects accounted for *, b) subjects lost to follow up unlikely to introduce bias - small number lost - > 20% *, c) Kaplan-Meier Plot Curve provided *, d) follow up rate < 20% and no description of those lost, e) no statement. Supplementary Table 3 Results of leave-one-out cross-validation meta-analyses for the primary and secondary endpoints in herpes simplex virus (HSV) patients, comparing those who were treated with acyclovir to those who were not treated with antiviral drug. The pooled relative risk estimate (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) as well as the heterogeneity statistic I2 were considered when omitting the indicated study. Abbreviations: ICU, intensive care unit.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.7120.022

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
Domainnot available
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicHerpesvirus Infections and Treatments→French-language works237,207→