Assessment of generalizability, applicability and predictability (GAP) for evaluating external validity in studies of universal family‐based prevention of alcohol misuse in young people: systematic methodological review of randomized controlled trials
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To assess external validity characteristics of studies from two Cochrane Systematic Reviews of the effectiveness of universal family-based prevention of alcohol misuse in young people. METHODS: Two reviewers used an a priori developed external validity rating form and independently assessed three external validity dimensions of generalizability, applicability and predictability (GAP) in randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: The majority (69%) of the included 29 studies were rated 'unclear' on the reporting of sufficient information for judging generalizability from sample to study population. Ten studies (35%) were rated 'unclear' on the reporting of sufficient information for judging applicability to other populations and settings. No study provided an assessment of the validity of the trial end-point measures for subsequent mortality, morbidity, quality of life or other economic or social outcomes. Similarly, no study reported on the validity of surrogate measures using established criteria for assessing surrogate end-points. CONCLUSIONS: Studies evaluating the benefits of family-based prevention of alcohol misuse in young people are generally inadequate at reporting information relevant to generalizability of the findings or implications for health or social outcomes. Researchers, study authors, peer reviewers, journal editors and scientific societies should take steps to improve the reporting of information relevant to external validity in prevention 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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Reporting · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
| gpt | MetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (broad) Domain: Reporting · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.083 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it