Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Sir—As coinvestigator in a clinical study of echinacea [1] discussed in the recent article by Caruso and Gwaltney [2], I would like to point out numerous errors in their characterization of our study as “not well designed.” They claim that our study lacked proper randomization, intention-to-treat analysis, proof of blinding, and validated case definition. Our study was misrepresented in all of those points. With respect to random assignment, our study states that “subjects were randomly assigned to receive either the Echinacea or placebo” [1, p. 77]. The method we used is the same as that used in the study by Barrett et al. [3], which Caruso and Gwaltney [2] concluded met their criteria for randomized assignment. With respect to intention-to-treat analysis, again, the authors failed to note that our results, which were based on intention-to-treat, were published alongside the per protocol results. Every figure in our paper contained intention-to-treat analysis as well as the per protocol analysis. The discussion of both results is included. With respect to blinding, our study states that “blinding was also maintained adequately during the treatment period. On completion of the study, ∼50% of the subjects in both groups could not guess correctly whether they had received echinacea or placebo” [1, p. 78]. Our assessment of blinding is almost identical to that made in the study by Taylor et al. [4], which Caruso and Gwaltney [2] considered to have met their criteria for proof of blinding. With respect to the validated case definition, once again, Caruso and Gwaltney [2] failed to note that the symptom scale used in our study is the same 10-point Likert scale used in Barrett et al. [3]. In our study, the subjects were enrolled at onset of the first symptom, whereas in the study by Barrett et al. [3], study subjects were enrolled after the onset of 2 symptoms. It should be noted that the randomization process would have corrected any results due to this difference. In our study, both the echinacea group and the placebo group would have started their treatment at the onset of the same number of symptoms, and there is no difference in case definition between the 2 groups. Finally, Caruso and Gwaltney [2] failed to address the most fundamental deficiency in the 2 “perfect” studies (Barrett et al. [3] and Taylor et al. [4]), as well as the other articles they chose to include in their meta-analysis. None of these studies used a standardized echinacea extract. In contrast, the echinacea preparation used in our study was standardized and had already been shown to be effective in animal studies [5, 6]. We are disappointed in Caruso and Gwaltney's superficial review of our paper and the misrepresentation that resulted. We sincerely hope that these errors will be rectified in your journal at the earliest opportunity. Potential conflicts of interest. R.B. has provided consultation services to Factors R & D Technologies.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,023 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».