Quality Evaluation of Methodology on the Changes in Traditional Chinese Medicine Syndromes of Stroke and Risk Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The longitudinal changes of Chinese medicine syndrome in the participants with stroke and its risk factors are essentials to the treatment with syndrome differentiation of traditional Chinese medicine for cerebrovascular diseases. Objective To evaluate the methodological quality of cohort studies about longitudinal changes of Chinese medicine syndrome in stroke and its risk factors. Methods The CNKI, Wanfang Data, CBM database and PubMed were electronically searched for cohort studies about longitudinal changes of Chinese medicine syndrome in stroke and its risk factors from establishment to December, 2023. Two investigators were independently responsible for screening articles and extracting data. The methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) . Results A total of 22 articles including 21 cohort studies were included to the review. The median of NOS scores was 5 (4, 5). In details, NOS items scored best included item 2 "Selection of the Non-Exposed Cohort" (100.00%), item 4 "Demonstration That Outcome of Interest Was Not Present at Start of Study" (100.00%), and item 3 "Ascertainment of Exposure" (90.91%). Items scored least included item 1 "Representativeness of the Exposed Cohort" (9.09%), item 6 "Assessment of Outcome" (9.09%), and item 5 "Comparability of Cohorts on the Basis of the Design or Analysis" (18.18%). Subgroup analysis suggested that journal grade was potential factors influencing methodology quality (Z=-2.554, P=0.011) . Conclusion The methodological quality of cohort studies about longitudinal changes of Chinese medicine syndrome in the participants with stroke and its risk factors was of moderate methodological quality. The efforts to improve the participant representativeness, out ascertainment, quality of follow-ups and controlling confounders specific to Chinese medicine syndrome should be further encouraged.
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 | 0.429 | 0.661 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".