MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1575868305 · doi:10.1159/000316124

Clinical Trials: Planning and Analysis

2010· review· en· W1575868305 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEndocrine development · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialClinical study designResearch designRandomizationSubgroup analysisMedicineMedical physicsIntensive care medicineComputer scienceManagement scienceStatisticsInternal medicineMathematicsEngineeringMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With specific reference to studies of growth hormone therapies, this chapter re-examines some basic principles in clinical research and considers some of the more complex aspects of trial design. The statistical structure which underpins trial design is characterized with specific attention given to samples size, subgroup analyses, multicentre trials and the role and implementation of randomization. Topics related to outcomes in studies of growth hormone therapy are discussed, including the possible value of surrogate responses, longitudinal outcomes and their analysis, and multiple outcomes. Additional design issues addressed are multiarmed trials, factorial designs and study monitoring. Brief comments are offered on the interpretation of negative trials and on non-inferiority trials.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.332
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.332
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.893
GPT teacher head0.730
Teacher spread0.163 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it