MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W15778447 · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2011.01.016

Data withdrawal in randomized controlled trials: Defining the problem and proposing solutions

2011· review· en· W15778447 on OpenAlexafffund
Chenglin Ye, Lora Giangregorio, Anne Holbrook, Eleanor Pullenayegum, Charlie H. Goldsmith, Lehana Thabane

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Clinical Trials · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesPopulation Health Research InstituteUniversity of WaterlooMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMissing dataRandomized controlled trialMedicineData collectionImputation (statistics)Research ethicsResearch designLegislationPsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.790
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.911
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7900.911
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0660.008
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.936
GPT teacher head0.697
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Clinical TrialsSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207