Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trials in Health Care (Practihc) extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement is a guidance document for authors reporting randomized trials of interventions directly aimed at improving health status, or healthcare processes or outcomes, under real-world conditions, that is, under the conditions of healthcare settings as usually organized, resourced, and run. Practihc may be useful for peer reviewers and editors reviewing reports of randomized trials, for authors wishing to provide a full report oriented toward decision makers, and for readers wanting to gauge the relevance of a randomized trial conducted elsewhere, to the care setting in which they might wish to use the evaluated intervention. The Practihc extension has been developed to help authors who evaluate interventions with the goal of using their published results to influence decisions on “real-world” use of the intervention that they have evaluated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.246 | 0.677 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.116 | 0.029 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".