Talk:1447: Meta-Analysis

2025-06-18T07:26:26Z

2001:4C4E:1C05:FF00:F57C:1362:2E0C:C70D: /* Meta-meta-…-meta-analysis */

What is this "Medline, Embase and Cochrane" ? Thanks. Dams. {{unsigned ip|108.162.254.30}}
:Databases of Medical Publications [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.30|108.162.254.30]] 08:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
:Medline[http://www.medline.com/], Embase[http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/embase/about] and Cochrane[http://www.cochrane.org/] are medical research databases. You can find there studies on various drug uses or treatment plans. A useful information source if you want to compare studies on use of Allopurinol for chronic gout or else. [[User:Jkotek|Jkotek]] ([[User talk:Jkotek|talk]]) 08:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
::Seems to me that should be in the explanation, no? -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 15:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Would it be helpful to include a breakdown of the terms?
*Meta-Analysis = "We searched M, E, & C for [keyword]"
*Meta-Meta-Analysis = "We searched M, E, & C for 'We searched M, E, & C for [keyword]'"
*Meta-Meta-Meta-Analysis = "We searched M, E, & C for 'We searched M, E, & C for 'We searched M, E, & C for [keyword]""
[[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 08:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
:Okay so... Is Meta-Meta-Meta-Meta-Analysis just "We searched M, E, & C for 'We searched M, E, & C for 'We searched M, E, & C for 'We searched M, E, & C for [keyword]"""? {{unsigned_ip|162.158.28.184|04:58, 7 April 2025}}

Your paper is rejected. //"TOO META"--[[User:Theme|Theme]] ([[User talk:Theme|talk]]) 08:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

IMHO a better would be this:
*Meta-Analysis = "We searched M, E, & C for [keyword] and compared results between each other"
*Meta-Meta-Analysis = "We analyzed how others 'search the M, E, & C for for [keyword] and compare the results'"
*Meta-Meta-Meta-Analysis = "We analyzed how other 'analyze how others search the M, E, & C for for [keyword] and compare the results'"
too meta [[User:Jkotek|Jkotek]] ([[User talk:Jkotek|talk]]) 15:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand this explanation! Why isn't there an "Explain Explain XKCD" site? --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 23:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
:I don't understand this comment! We need a Explain XKCD comment comments section!--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.199|108.162.231.199]] 09:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems that Randall actually enjoys rejections. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.139|173.245.50.139]] 03:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The term "too meta" means that something is too self referential. Not "so abstract that they can't be easily interpreted." {{unsigned ip|108.162.254.88}}
:Actually, if we stick to the greek root, "meta" simply signifies "beyond", or "after". So, by adding level after level of analysis, by going beyond single studies, and single studies of single studies, it is truly becoming "too meta", too grand. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.207|108.162.229.207]] 21:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
:My interpretation is that it could mean both. For example, "too meta" = "the strenght of meta is too high" for being too self referential or "too meta" = "there's too many metas" for the excess or abstraction. I'm now experiencing {{w|Semantic satiation}}. [[Special:Contributions/188.114.99.189|188.114.99.189]] 18:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

== How much paper is there? ==

If the paper is a meta-meta-meta-analysis, then the paper is discussing the paper is discussing the paper? Is the Methods section (near-)infinite? How much paper does Randall have? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.164|108.162.246.164]] 17:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
:Papers are mostly paperless these days. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.10|172.69.34.10]] 20:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
::[https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1162:_Log_Scale Maybe he's a quitter.] [[User:L-Space Traveler|L-Space Traveler]] ([[User talk:L-Space Traveler|talk]]) 14:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

== Meta-meta-…-meta-analysis ==
Meta-analyses may use other permutations (like "We searched Embase, Cochrane and Medline for…"). Since there are 3 databases, the number of permutations is 6 ''for each iteration''. All iterations are independent from the others, so there are 36 possibilities in a meta-meta-meta-analysis, and 46,656 in a meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-analysis.

Since the number of possibilities increases exponentially, a meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-analysis would have over 10<sup>14</sup> permutations, much more than what can be handled by hand, a meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-analysis has over 3.6 · 10<sup>22</sup>, and a meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-analysis has about as many possibilites as the estimated number of elementary particles (although I found no meta-meta-meta-meta-analysis or beyond on the web and only 1 study said to be a meta-meta-meta-analysis). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.25|172.70.42.25]] 18:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1447: Meta-Analysis