MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1931781407 · doi:10.1136/bmj.h2147

The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose

2015· article· en· W1931781407 on OpenAlexaff
Kirsty Loudon, Shaun Treweek, Frank Sullivan, Peter T. Donnan, Kevin E. Thorpe, Merrick Zwarenstein

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalCentre for Family MedicineWestern UniversityNorth York General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Computer scienceMatching (statistics)Domain (mathematical analysis)Outcome (game theory)Clinical trialMedical physicsManagement scienceSoftware engineeringMedicineEngineeringPathologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PRECIS is a tool to help trialists make design decisions consistent with the intended purpose of their trial. This paper gives guidance on how to use an improved, validated version, PRECIS-2, which has been developed with the help of over 80 international trialists, clinicians, and policymakers. Keeping the original simple wheel format, PRECIS-2 has nine domains—eligibility criteria, recruitment, setting, organisation, flexibility (delivery), flexibility (adherence), follow-up, primary outcome, and primary analysis—scored from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic) to facilitate domain discussion and consensus. It is hoped PRECIS-2 will be valuable in supporting the explicit matching of design decisions to how the trial results are intended to be used

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.440
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.733
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4400.733
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.014
Bibliometrics0.0150.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0040.010
Research integrity0.0080.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.011

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 head0.964
GPT teacher head0.628
Teacher spread0.337 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations1,833
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207