Fields commonly involved in this pattern
Human-readable label for this stage execution
Concrete stage class this execution represents (e.g., SearchStage, ReportingStage). Auto-populated; enables deserialization of polymorphic stages to typed RDF.
Description of what was done in this stage
Overall statistics for the extraction stage
AI assistance configuration for extraction
Completion status of this stage execution
Proportion of false negatives among negative calls
Ratio of odds of positive test in diseased vs non-diseased
Expected proportion of false discoveries
Metrics related to process efficiency and completion
Trend in processing speed (increasing/stable/decreasing)
Unique identifier for this quality control check
Stage for managing review registrations and pre-registrations, focusing on referencing external registry entries rather than hosting registration content.
Policy governing registration requirements
Statistics about the registration process
Version ID of the current active registration
Protocol defining the registration approach and requirements
Quality control measures for the registration process
All registrations associated with this review
A template used for registering systematic reviews, defining required and optional fields.
Organization or registry providing the template
JSON Schema or other formal definition of fields
ID of the template that supersedes this one
Date when this template will be or was deprecated
Date and time when the template was last updated
Description of the template and its purpose
DOI of the template publication, if available (e.g., for PRISMA-P)
Optional stage for documenting review reporting and publication activities.
Reporting checklists and item-level completion information
Manuscripts, preprints, reports, and supplementary reporting documents
Summary statistics for the reporting process
Protocol deviations disclosed in reporting
Publication, submission, and dissemination records
Protocol or plan for reporting the review
AI assistance configuration for reporting
Study selection flow diagram information if applicable
Author, stakeholder, or governance approvals for reports
Average time to resolve conflicts in minutes
Matrix showing agreement patterns between participants
Root container for a systematic review. This is the primary object that contains all review data, stages, literature records, and artifacts. Every RevAIse document should have a Review as its top-level object.
Stored results of conformance checks against declared protocols
Outputs and logs produced by the review stages
Review protocol with registration details
Literature records managed in this review
Software environment for reproducibility
Protocols or guidelines this review or record declares conformance to
Ethical approval information if applicable
Narrative prose sections of the review report
Statement on publicly available data, code, and other materials
When this review record was last updated
Stage for assessing methodological risk of bias in included studies.
Protocol defining the risk-of-bias assessment approach
Summary statistics for the assessment stage
Quality control measures for the assessment process
Optional stage documenting exploratory work before or alongside protocol finalization.
Protocol or plan for the scoping activity
Input from stakeholders, domain experts, librarians, or methodologists
Exploratory searches used to understand the evidence landscape
Quality control measures for the scoping process
Assessment of whether the planned review scope is feasible
Decisions made while refining the review scope
Candidate review questions considered during scoping
Summary statistics for the scoping process
Whether calibration exercises were performed
Unique identifier for quality control instance
Consistency checks performed during screening
Agreement level achieved in pilot screening
Type of quality control (screening, extraction, synthesis, etc.)
Execution of the screening stage, including deduplication and multiple screening rounds.
Different rounds of screening (e.g., title/abstract, full-text)
Process for identifying and removing duplicate records
Overall statistics for the entire screening stage
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for screening
Collections of literature records resulting from searches
Quality control measures for the search process
Protocol defining the search strategy and approach
Base class for protocols defining how a review stage should be conducted. Stage-specific protocols should inherit from this class.
Unique identifier for this stage protocol
Base class for quality control measures across review stages. Stage-specific QC classes should inherit from this.
Base class for statistics collected about review stages. Stage-specific statistics classes should inherit from this.
Total number of items to process in this stage
Workload distribution among participants
Stage for synthesizing evidence from included studies
AI assistance configuration for synthesis
Visualizations produced (forest plots, funnel plots, etc.)
Narrative synthesis results if performed
Protocol defining how synthesis will be conducted
Description of what this parameter controls
Performance metrics for AI assistance, extending general performance metrics with AI-specific measures
Average processing time per item (seconds)
Few-shot examples included in the prompt
Result for a single protocol item or constraint within a conformance assertion.
Message describing the item result, such as a violation reason
Identifier of the protocol item or constraint
Location in the review or record where the item is addressed
Information about a database used for searching
Additional notes about database access or limitations
Name of the database (e.g., PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science)
Unique identifier for the deduplication process
Number of unique records after deduplication
Total number of records before deduplication
Criteria used to identify duplicates (e.g., DOI, title similarity)
Additional notes about the deduplication process
Group of records identified as duplicates
Similarity score between duplicates (0-1)
Unique identifier for the duplicate group
Assessment of individual quality domains
Exploratory search used to test or refine the review scope.
Number of records considered relevant during exploratory review
Number of records found by the exploratory search
Outputs produced by the exploratory search
Reference to the source literature record
Final reconciled values after resolution
Unique identifier for the extracted study
Template or form used for data extraction
Protocol for the data extraction process
Whether extraction is done independently
Method for resolving extraction disagreements
Quality control measures for data extraction
Extraction-specific quality checks performed
Feasibility assessment for the proposed review scope.
Feasibility assessment of the population scope
Feasibility assessment of expected data availability
Feasibility assessment of expected literature volume
Known resource constraints affecting feasibility
Agreement metrics for a specific field or item
Confidence interval for the agreement rate
Definition of a field used in forms, templates, or data collection
Category or section this field belongs to
Funder identifier (e.g., Crossref Funder ID)
Statistics measuring heterogeneity in meta-analysis
I² statistic (percentage of variation due to heterogeneity)
Record of human modification to AI output
ID of the person who made the modification
Type of model used (fixed/random effects)
Unique identifier for this meta-analysis
Unique identifier for this narrative synthesis
Overall conclusion about publication bias
Submission, publication, or dissemination record.
A registration entry referencing an external registry, with full versioning support.
When this registration record was created
When this registration was last modified
Type of registration (pre-registration or registration)
Name of the registry (e.g., PROSPERO, OSF, ClinicalTrials.gov)
Unique identifier for this registration within the review
URL to the registration entry in the external registry
Policy governing registration requirements and constraints
Maximum days allowed between version updates
Whether content hashes are required for verification
Whether DOIs are required for registration versions
Allowed hash algorithms for content verification
Whether amendments require formal approval
Commitments to transparency and open science
Platforms where the protocol will be registered
When registration should occur (e.g., before data collection)
Whether registration accuracy was verified
Whether registration completeness was verified
Average days between registration versions
Days from protocol creation to first registration
Rate of compliance with registration requirements
An immutable version of a registration, capturing the exact state at a point in time.
Version identifier in the external registry
Cryptographic hash of the registration content
When this version was accepted by the registry
Algorithm used to generate the content hash
When this version was submitted to the registry
URI to the immutable content of this version
Semantic version number (e.g., 1.0.0, 1.1.0)
DOI of the registration template used, if available
Optional full text as submitted to the registry
Report, manuscript, preprint, or supplementary document.
Date associated with the report document
Approval or signoff associated with reporting.
Checklist documenting completion of a reporting standard.
Name or identifier of the checklist standard
Item-level status for a reporting checklist.
References to model artifacts supporting the reporting item
Location in the report where the item is addressed
Identifier for a reporting checklist item
Completion status for the reporting item
Text or description of the reporting item
Protocol or workflow deviation disclosed in reporting.
Protocol, analysis plan, or workflow element from which the report deviated
Location where the deviation is reported
Impact of the deviation on interpretation or conclusions
Protocol or plan for reporting and dissemination.
Open access plan for reports or manuscripts
Plan for data availability statements and shared data
Planned publication or dissemination types
Whether flow diagram counts were reconciled against review data
Whether reporting received internal peer review
Whether links to supporting artifacts were verified
Whether reporting checklist completion was verified
Whether transparency statements were checked
Reporting standard used or planned for the review report.
Completion status for the reporting standard
Scope or applicability of the reporting standard
Number of reporting standards documented
Total number of reporting checklist items
Number of completed reporting checklist items
Count of a specific resolution method usage
Narrative prose sections of the review report.
Limitations of the review processes used
Rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge
General interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence
Implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research
Limitations of the evidence included in the review
Candidate review question considered during scoping.
Outcome components of the candidate question
Identifier of a related scoping decision
Intervention, exposure, or concept component of the candidate question
Context or setting component of the candidate question
Comparator component of the candidate question
Population component of the candidate question
Rationale for accepting, rejecting, or refining a candidate question
Framework used to express the question, such as PICO, PECO, or SPIDER
Risk-of-bias assessment for a single included study.
Per-domain risk-of-bias judgements, including signalling questions
Overall risk-of-bias judgement for the study
Identifier for a risk-of-bias assessment record
Protocol for risk-of-bias assessment, including tool and rater configuration.
Method for resolving disagreements between raters
Minimum number of independent raters per study
Risk-of-bias assessment tool used (e.g., RoB 2, ROBINS-I, NOS)
Quality control measures for risk-of-bias assessment.
Whether inter-rater reliability was checked
Whether rater calibration was performed before assessment
Whether all rater discrepancies were resolved
Summary statistics for the risk-of-bias assessment stage.
Number of studies judged at low risk of bias
Total number of studies assessed for risk of bias
Number of studies judged as raising some concerns
Number of studies judged at high risk of bias
Protocol sections affected by the decision
Date and time when the decision was made
Protocol describing how scoping work will be conducted.
Initial review question before refinement
Initial or refined concept, intervention, exposure, or topic scope
Initial or refined context or setting scope
Consistency checks performed during scoping
Whether scoping work received peer review
Whether stakeholders validated the proposed scope
Whether a librarian or information specialist was consulted
Number of exploratory searches conducted
Number of stakeholder input records documented
Number of records found during exploratory searches
Number of candidate questions considered
Resolution of conflicts between reviewer decisions
Final decision after conflict resolution
ID of the record with conflicting decisions
ID of the person/process that resolved the conflict
Individual screening decision by a reviewer
Unique identifier for the literature record
Default strategy for resolving conflicts
Whether screening is blind to other reviewers
A specific round of screening (e.g., title/abstract or full-text)
Resolutions of conflicts between reviewers
IDs of records included/passed to next round
Unique identifier for the screening round
Overall statistics for the screening stage
Publication type restrictions (e.g., RCTs only)
Whether the search strategy was peer-reviewed (PRESS)
Language restrictions applied to searches
Detailed description of the search strategy
Limits applied to searches (e.g., human studies only)
Whether search reproducibility was verified
Search query executed against a database
Additional notes about the query or its execution
Date and time when the query was executed
The actual search query string or expression
Filters applied (e.g., date range, language, study type)
Reference to the LiteratureRecordCollection containing results
Name of the database where query was executed
Number of grey literature sources searched
Total number of records retrieved from all searches
Supplementary search methods used (e.g., citation searching, hand searching)
Total number of records retrieved before deduplication
Sensitivity analysis to test robustness of results
Unique identifier for this sensitivity analysis
Assessment of a risk-of-bias signalling question.
Supporting evidence for the signalling-question response
Rationale for the signalling-question response
Base class for executing a specific stage of the review. Stages should extend this with their specific needs.
Whether the input influenced the review scope
A single result reported by a study for a specific outcome, with full numeric detail.
Name of the outcome this result refers to
Sample size in the comparator or unexposed group
Total sample size contributing to this result
Sample size in the intervention or exposed group
Effect measure or statistic reported (e.g., odds ratio, risk ratio, mean difference)
Unique identifier for this subgroup analysis
P-value for test of subgroup differences
Protocol defining synthesis approach and methods
Rules for transforming data for synthesis
Overall approach to synthesis (narrative, quantitative, mixed)
Category of parameter (e.g., search, AI, export, filtering)
Scoping and registration details of the review.
Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Study design details
Research Organization Registry identifier
Stored result of checking a review or record against a declared protocol, including overall outcome and per-item results.
Per-item or per-constraint results from the conformance check
Version of the SHACL shapes used for the check
Version of the tool that performed the conformance check
When the conformance check was performed
Unique identifier for this conformance assertion
Agent or person that performed the conformance check
Overall outcome of the conformance check
Name of the tool that performed the conformance check
URI of the protocol this assertion was checked against
Individual data point extracted from a study
Study selection flow diagram counts and artifact references.
Reporting standard the flow diagram conforms to
Number of reports assessed for eligibility
Number of studies included in the review
A literature record representing a publication that persists across review stages.
Per-outcome results reported by this study, with effect estimates and confidence intervals
Unique identifier for this literature record
Full risk-of-bias / quality assessment for this study, with per-domain judgements
Reference to a versioned review protocol or guideline that a review or record declares conformance to (e.g., PRISMA 2020, ROBIS, RoB 2).
Human-readable name of the protocol or guideline
Unique identifier for this protocol reference within the document
Versioned URI identifying the external protocol specification
Quality or risk of bias assessment for a study or item
Outcome targeted by the assessment if outcome-specific
Effect estimate, contrast, or estimand targeted by the assessment if applicable
Version or variant of the risk-of-bias assessment tool
Risk-of-bias domain judgements, including signalling questions
Time taken to complete assessment in minutes
Overall justification for the risk-of-bias judgement
Assessment of a specific risk-of-bias domain.
Assessed direction of bias for this domain if evaluated
Signalling-question assessments for this domain
Whether this field can have multiple values
Unique identifier for this field within the template
Description of what should be entered in this field
Section of the template this field belongs to
A documented change or clarification to a review protocol.
Detailed description of what was changed
Sections of the protocol affected by this amendment
Person or entity who approved the amendment
Reference to a stage output in this or another RevAIse bundle.
Modifications made by humans to AI outputs
Number of tokens used (for LLM-based systems)
Reference to the AIAssistance configuration used
A work session by a participant on review tasks
Configuration for AI assistance in any review stage
Unique identifier for this AI assistance configuration
Description of training data or fine-tuning if applicable
Strategy for handling AI errors or failures
Minimum confidence score for accepting AI outputs
AI service provider (e.g., OpenAI, Anthropic, Hugging Face)
Performance metrics for the AI assistance
Name of the AI model (e.g., GPT-4, Claude, BERT)
A person participating in the review process
Number of items completed by this participant
Training or calibration exercises completed
Number of items assigned to this participant
Role(s) of the participant in the review
Whether conflicts of interest were declared
Areas of expertise relevant to the review
Resolution of conflicts or disagreements between reviewers
Original conflicting decisions or values
Person or process that resolved the conflict
Shared training information for review stages
Proportion of team members who completed training
Metrics for measuring agreement between reviewers/extractors
Krippendorff's alpha reliability coefficient
External tool or platform used in the review process
Specific features of the tool that were used
Vendor or organization providing the tool
API endpoint if accessed programmatically
Name of the tool (e.g., Covidence, RevMan, Elicit, PrismaAI)
Subscription level or plan used (if applicable)
Cost information (subscription, per-use, etc.)
AI models used by the tool (if disclosed)
General settings description or JSON configuration
Output file or log produced by a review stage (results, logs, code, visualizations).