MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096434134

Evidence: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane database were

2015· article· en· W7096434134 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvarian hyperstimulation syndromeHealth professionalsMEDLINETask forceQuality (philosophy)Clinical PracticeDiseaseSystematic review
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

searched for relevant articles, using the key words “ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome ” and “gonadotropins, ” and guidelines created by other professional societies were reviewed. Values: The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Recommendations for practice were ranked according to the method described in that report (Table 1). Recommendations 1. Once the diagnosis of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is made, disease severity should be classified as mild, moderate, severe, or critical. (III-B) 2. The physician prescribing gonadotropins should inform each woman of her personal risk for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. (III-A) 3. In areas where patients do not have ready access to

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.005
Bibliometrics0.0700.060
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.007

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207