Study conduct, monitoring and data management in a trinational trial: the OPTIMA model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The OPTions In Management with Antiretrovirals (OPTIMA) Trial, a collaboration between three governmental agencies in the USA, UK and Canada is a large-scale, multicenter, randomized controlled trial designed to compare the relative efficacy of different therapeutic strategies in HIV disease. The collaboration of three coordinating centers introduced unique data management issues including: a) use of different data systems for managing "country" trial data; b) two-way data transfer between the coordinating centers and the center where OPTIMA data is merged and analysis files are generated; and c) translation of certain data forms (mainly patient completed questionnaires) into French and Spanish. The involvement of three data centers provided a challenge in planning, designing and executing data management procedures in OPTIMA. Processes were implemented to ensure the trial's successful execution at the trinational level, without disregarding country-specific requirements and regulations. The OPTIMA model required a significant time and resource investment on behalf of all agencies involved, but allowed for autonomy and a sense of joint ownership of data in different countries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.403 | 0.334 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".