MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Finding a Contract Research Organization for Your Research Trial

2009· article· en· W1965951282 on OpenAlexaff
Nicole Simunovic, Sheila Sprague, Mohit Bhandari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsHamilton General HospitalMcMaster University Medical CentreMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialScale (ratio)BusinessProcess managementKnowledge managementComputer scienceMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical research organizations (CROs) can provide consulting services and support to assist with the conduct of clinical trials from site initiation to study close-out. As the number of CROs continues to increase, it can be difficult to determine the optimal organization to help manage a large or even a small-scale project. We present uses for and attributes to consider when choosing a CRO, and provide examples of four CROs specializing in various therapeutic areas.

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)0.151
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.223
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1510.223
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0160.011
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0240.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1160.054

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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.349 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Long-Term Effects of Medical ImplantsSame topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207