MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Additional file 1: of Noninvasive versus invasive mechanical ventilation for immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2016· article· en· W6977331865 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntubationMechanical ventilationGrading (engineering)Risk assessmentMEDLINESubgroup analysisCohort studyRelative risk

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Supplement 1. Risk of bias graph: review authorsâ judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies. Supplement 2. Risk of bias summary: review authorsâ judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study. Supplement 3. CENTRAL search strategy. Supplement 4. PubMed search strategy. Supplement 5. EMBASE search strategy. Supplement 6. CBM search strategy. Supplement 7. Assessment of risk of bias in cohort studies. Supplement 8. Assessment of risk of bias in case-control studies. Supplement 9. Newcastle-Ottawa Grading Results. Supplement 10. Subgroup meta-analysis based on intubation rate in NIV group. Supplement 11. Mortality in hospital by intubation rate. Supplement 12. Mortality in ICU by intubation rate. Supplement 13. 30-day mortality by intubation rate. Supplement 14. Duration of hospitalization by intubation rate. Supplement 15. Duration of ICU stay by intubation rate. Supplement 16. Nosocomial infection by intubation rate. Supplement 17. Duration of mechanical ventilaiton by intubation rate. (DOC 194Â kb)

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
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 score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0090.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.7930.032

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→