From EOI to a defined contribution
The EOI supports first-pass screening. Each submission is reviewed, the full cohort is profiled, the owner makes selection and provisional tier decisions, and a contribution agreement records the project, role, responsibilities and terms.
Submitting the form is not acceptance or an authorship offer.
Form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScm4GFzGx0m6Otc6BFEcOoEa64QOynjL-El3PHphst8Qf7O3g/viewform
Correspondence: gesc.global@gmail.com
The EOI supports first-pass screening. Each submission is reviewed, the full cohort is profiled, the owner makes selection and provisional tier decisions, and a contribution agreement records the project, role, responsibilities and terms.
Submitting the form is not acceptance or an authorship offer.
Form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScm4GFzGx0m6Otc6BFEcOoEa64QOynjL-El3PHphst8Qf7O3g/viewform
Correspondence: gesc.global@gmail.com
Responsibility tiers and authorship
Applicants may indicate a preference for First, Second, Third, Middle or Entry author responsibility.
A preference supports matching; it is not an offer. Roles are considered after screening and whole-cohort profiling. No tier or author order is guaranteed.
Final authorship depends on documented contribution, quality, timeliness, manuscript development, final approval and accountability. Selection, journal acceptance and publication are not guaranteed.
Applicants may indicate a preference for First, Second, Third, Middle or Entry author responsibility.
A preference supports matching; it is not an offer. Roles are considered after screening and whole-cohort profiling. No tier or author order is guaranteed.
Final authorship depends on documented contribution, quality, timeliness, manuscript development, final approval and accountability. Selection, journal acceptance and publication are not guaranteed.
What happens after an EOI?
GESC aims to acknowledge submissions within two working days. Email-only correspondence is through gesc.global@gmail.com.
First-pass review considers profile, project interest and role preference. A continuity check considers availability through revision. Applicants are then considered together before role matching.
Submitting the form does not guarantee selection or authorship.
Form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScm4GFzGx0m6Otc6BFEcOoEa64QOynjL-El3PHphst8Qf7O3g/viewform
GESC aims to acknowledge submissions within two working days. Email-only correspondence is through gesc.global@gmail.com.
First-pass review considers profile, project interest and role preference. A continuity check considers availability through revision. Applicants are then considered together before role matching.
Submitting the form does not guarantee selection or authorship.
Form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScm4GFzGx0m6Otc6BFEcOoEa64QOynjL-El3PHphst8Qf7O3g/viewform
Research in Practice 01 — From search results to included studies
This authentic PRISMA 2020 flow diagram from a previously completed systematic review records the complete selection pathway. The study remains unnamed publicly:
• 2,438 records identified across three databases;
• 629 duplicate records removed;
• 1,809 titles and abstracts screened;
• 54 full-text reports assessed;
• 45 reports excluded for recorded reasons; and
• nine studies included.
PRISMA shows where records left the workflow and accounts for the transition from a broad search to the final evidence base. It supports transparency, but it does not assess whether the included studies were methodologically reliable.
This authentic PRISMA 2020 flow diagram from a previously completed systematic review records the complete selection pathway. The study remains unnamed publicly:
• 2,438 records identified across three databases;
• 629 duplicate records removed;
• 1,809 titles and abstracts screened;
• 54 full-text reports assessed;
• 45 reports excluded for recorded reasons; and
• nine studies included.
PRISMA shows where records left the workflow and accounts for the transition from a broad search to the final evidence base. It supports transparency, but it does not assess whether the included studies were methodologically reliable.
Research in Practice 02 - How risk of bias and applicability are assessed
This authentic QUADAS-2 figure from a previously completed diagnostic-accuracy review records judgements across four risk-of-bias domains and three applicability domains.
No study was low risk across every bias domain, and seven of nine had a high-risk judgement in at least one domain. Patient selection was the most frequent concern: four studies were high risk and two unclear. Applicability was less concerning for the index test and reference standard, although patient-selection concerns remained.
The colours are not a total quality score. Each judgement belongs to a specific domain and its supporting reason.
QUADAS-2 identifies where study conduct or applicability may affect interpretation. It does not show the size or precision of diagnostic performance. The next post uses a coupled forest plot.
This authentic QUADAS-2 figure from a previously completed diagnostic-accuracy review records judgements across four risk-of-bias domains and three applicability domains.
No study was low risk across every bias domain, and seven of nine had a high-risk judgement in at least one domain. Patient selection was the most frequent concern: four studies were high risk and two unclear. Applicability was less concerning for the index test and reference standard, although patient-selection concerns remained.
The colours are not a total quality score. Each judgement belongs to a specific domain and its supporting reason.
QUADAS-2 identifies where study conduct or applicability may affect interpretation. It does not show the size or precision of diagnostic performance. The next post uses a coupled forest plot.
Research in Practice 03 - How study results and uncertainty vary
This authentic coupled forest plot from a previously completed diagnostic-accuracy review displays nine sensitivity and specificity estimates with 95% confidence intervals. It also retains each study's TP, FP, FN and TN counts.
Sensitivity ranges from 0.88 to 1.00, while specificity ranges from 0.12 to 0.92. Sensitivity clusters near the upper end of the scale, but specificity varies much more widely. The horizontal lines show the uncertainty around each estimate.
This is not a league table. Differences may reflect thresholds, case mix, sampling, verification and study design.
The forest plot shows study-level variation. The next post uses an HSROC plot to interpret sensitivity and specificity together.
This authentic coupled forest plot from a previously completed diagnostic-accuracy review displays nine sensitivity and specificity estimates with 95% confidence intervals. It also retains each study's TP, FP, FN and TN counts.
Sensitivity ranges from 0.88 to 1.00, while specificity ranges from 0.12 to 0.92. Sensitivity clusters near the upper end of the scale, but specificity varies much more widely. The horizontal lines show the uncertainty around each estimate.
This is not a league table. Differences may reflect thresholds, case mix, sampling, verification and study design.
The forest plot shows study-level variation. The next post uses an HSROC plot to interpret sensitivity and specificity together.
Research in Practice 04 - Reading sensitivity and specificity together
This authentic HSROC plot from a previously completed review combines nine study estimates in one joint model.
Open circles show individual studies; the black point is the summary estimate. Pooled sensitivity is 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.97) and pooled specificity is 0.70 (95% CI 0.49-0.85).
The confidence region describes uncertainty around the average summary point. The wider prediction region reflects greater variation expected across settings with different thresholds, populations and methods.
The summary point is an average, not a performance guarantee. It must be read with the forest plot, heterogeneity, risk of bias and the limited evidence volume of nine studies.
This authentic HSROC plot from a previously completed review combines nine study estimates in one joint model.
Open circles show individual studies; the black point is the summary estimate. Pooled sensitivity is 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.97) and pooled specificity is 0.70 (95% CI 0.49-0.85).
The confidence region describes uncertainty around the average summary point. The wider prediction region reflects greater variation expected across settings with different thresholds, populations and methods.
The summary point is an average, not a performance guarantee. It must be read with the forest plot, heterogeneity, risk of bias and the limited evidence volume of nine studies.
Research opportunity for IMGs
GESC welcomes expressions of interest from international medical graduates and residency applicants in two systematic review and meta-analysis projects:
Cardiology: Comparative accuracy of an AI-enabled digital stethoscope versus unaided clinician auscultation for significant left-sided valvular heart disease.
Gastroenterology: Comparative accuracy of intestinal ultrasound versus MR enterography for endoscopic Crohn’s disease activity.
The EOI is for first-pass screening. Submission is not acceptance or an authorship offer. Roles are considered after individual screening and whole-cohort profiling. Final authorship depends on documented contribution and recognized authorship requirements. Journal submission, acceptance and publication are not guaranteed.
Submit the Expression of Interest:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScm4GFzGx0m6Otc6BFEcOoEa64QOynjL-El3PHphst8Qf7O3g/viewform?usp=pp_url&entry.270320398=Telegram%20Ads%20%7C%20%40YouSMLe%20%7C%20PAD-SRC-TG-001&entry.542496275=Telegram
Questions: gesc.global@gmail.com
GESC welcomes expressions of interest from international medical graduates and residency applicants in two systematic review and meta-analysis projects:
Cardiology: Comparative accuracy of an AI-enabled digital stethoscope versus unaided clinician auscultation for significant left-sided valvular heart disease.
Gastroenterology: Comparative accuracy of intestinal ultrasound versus MR enterography for endoscopic Crohn’s disease activity.
The EOI is for first-pass screening. Submission is not acceptance or an authorship offer. Roles are considered after individual screening and whole-cohort profiling. Final authorship depends on documented contribution and recognized authorship requirements. Journal submission, acceptance and publication are not guaranteed.
Submit the Expression of Interest:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScm4GFzGx0m6Otc6BFEcOoEa64QOynjL-El3PHphst8Qf7O3g/viewform?usp=pp_url&entry.270320398=Telegram%20Ads%20%7C%20%40YouSMLe%20%7C%20PAD-SRC-TG-001&entry.542496275=Telegram
Questions: gesc.global@gmail.com
Google Docs
GESC Campaign 1 — Expression of Interest
The Global Evidence Synthesis Collaborative (GESC) is recruiting a contribution-matched cohort for two diagnostic-accuracy systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Project A — Cardiology: Comparative accuracy of an AI-enabled digital stethoscope versus unaided…
Project A — Cardiology: Comparative accuracy of an AI-enabled digital stethoscope versus unaided…
Research opportunity for IMGs
GESC welcomes expressions of interest from international medical graduates and residency applicants in two systematic review and meta-analysis projects:
Cardiology: Comparative accuracy of an AI-enabled digital stethoscope versus unaided clinician auscultation for significant left-sided valvular heart disease.
Gastroenterology: Comparative accuracy of intestinal ultrasound versus MR enterography for endoscopic Crohn’s disease activity.
The EOI is for first-pass screening. Submission is not acceptance or an authorship offer. Roles are considered after individual screening and whole-cohort profiling. Final authorship depends on documented contribution and recognized authorship requirements. Journal submission, acceptance and publication are not guaranteed.
Submit the Expression of Interest:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScm4GFzGx0m6Otc6BFEcOoEa64QOynjL-El3PHphst8Qf7O3g/viewform?usp=pp_url&entry.270320398=Telegram%20Ads%20%7C%20R1%20English%20pool%20%7C%20PAD-SRC-TG-001&entry.542496275=Telegram
Questions: gesc.global@gmail.com
GESC welcomes expressions of interest from international medical graduates and residency applicants in two systematic review and meta-analysis projects:
Cardiology: Comparative accuracy of an AI-enabled digital stethoscope versus unaided clinician auscultation for significant left-sided valvular heart disease.
Gastroenterology: Comparative accuracy of intestinal ultrasound versus MR enterography for endoscopic Crohn’s disease activity.
The EOI is for first-pass screening. Submission is not acceptance or an authorship offer. Roles are considered after individual screening and whole-cohort profiling. Final authorship depends on documented contribution and recognized authorship requirements. Journal submission, acceptance and publication are not guaranteed.
Submit the Expression of Interest:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScm4GFzGx0m6Otc6BFEcOoEa64QOynjL-El3PHphst8Qf7O3g/viewform?usp=pp_url&entry.270320398=Telegram%20Ads%20%7C%20R1%20English%20pool%20%7C%20PAD-SRC-TG-001&entry.542496275=Telegram
Questions: gesc.global@gmail.com
Google Docs
GESC Campaign 1 — Expression of Interest
The Global Evidence Synthesis Collaborative (GESC) is recruiting a contribution-matched cohort for two diagnostic-accuracy systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Project A — Cardiology: Comparative accuracy of an AI-enabled digital stethoscope versus unaided…
Project A — Cardiology: Comparative accuracy of an AI-enabled digital stethoscope versus unaided…
Research opportunity — project information
The Global Evidence Synthesis Collaborative (GESC) is accepting expressions of interest for two contribution-based systematic review and meta-analysis projects:
Cardiology: Comparative accuracy of an AI-enabled digital stethoscope versus unaided clinician auscultation for significant left-sided valvular heart disease.
Gastroenterology: Comparative accuracy of intestinal ultrasound versus MR enterography for endoscopic Crohn’s disease activity.
Expressions of interest are screened individually against project needs, relevant experience, availability and expected contribution. Submission is not acceptance or an authorship offer. Final authorship depends on documented contribution and recognised authorship requirements. Journal submission, acceptance and publication are not guaranteed.
To request the Expression of Interest form and project information, email gesc.global@gmail.com.
The Global Evidence Synthesis Collaborative (GESC) is accepting expressions of interest for two contribution-based systematic review and meta-analysis projects:
Cardiology: Comparative accuracy of an AI-enabled digital stethoscope versus unaided clinician auscultation for significant left-sided valvular heart disease.
Gastroenterology: Comparative accuracy of intestinal ultrasound versus MR enterography for endoscopic Crohn’s disease activity.
Expressions of interest are screened individually against project needs, relevant experience, availability and expected contribution. Submission is not acceptance or an authorship offer. Final authorship depends on documented contribution and recognised authorship requirements. Journal submission, acceptance and publication are not guaranteed.
To request the Expression of Interest form and project information, email gesc.global@gmail.com.