Evidence and limits
Finding: The reviewed abstract and selected methods describe metadata matching and comparison with citation-manager deduplication.
Impact: Watch duplicate-screening burden and false merges under the recorded review topic (see source) and the recorded review topic (see source).
Boundary: Consensus labels incorporate discrepancies identified by the tested tools; biomedical citation matching does not establish GitHub fork equivalence. Next: evaluate ambiguous matches with independently labeled source/version pairs. Ingested screened candidate; selected methods read, not full-text appraised or replicated
Flags: Biomedical metadata; consensus gold standard; current code differs from evaluated release; R-314 is the same family
Record State: Candidate only: not accepted into the reviewed catalog
What was reviewed: Previously screened candidate; review remains limited