MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1871162037 · doi:10.4088/jcp.15f10377

The Primary Outcome Measure and Its Importance in Clinical Trials

2015· review· en· W1871162037 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chittaranjan Andrade

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Psychiatry, University of TorontoUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
KeywordsOutcome (game theory)Clinical trialMedicineMeasure (data warehouse)Sample size determinationPsychologyStatisticsInternal medicineComputer scienceData miningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary outcome measure is the outcome that an investigator considers to be the most important among the many outcomes that are to be examined in the study. The primary outcome needs to be defined at the time the study is designed. There are 2 reasons for this: it reduces the risk of false-positive errors resulting from the statistical testing of many outcomes, and it reduces the risk of a false-negative error by providing the basis for the estimation of the sample size necessary for an adequately powered study. This article discusses the setting of the primary outcome measure, the need for it, the increased risk of false-positive and false-negative errors in secondary outcome results, how to regard articles that do not state the primary outcome, how to interpret results when secondary outcomes are statistically significant but not the primary outcome, and limitations of the concept of a primary outcome measure in clinical trial research.

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 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)0.634
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.124
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6340.124
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.875
GPT teacher head0.662
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations131
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Clinical PsychiatrySame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207