MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971518243 · doi:10.1542/neo.15-12-e558

Epidemiology and Clinical Research Design, Part 1: Study Types

2014· article· en· W1971518243 on OpenAlex
Veena Manja, Satyan Lakshminrusimha

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeoReviews · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsMedicineClinical study designResearch designRandomized controlled trialEpidemiologyCohort studyCrossover studyGold standard (test)Intensive care medicineClinical trialAlternative medicineSurgeryPathologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selecting the best available preventive and therapeutic measures to avoid disability and death is an important goal for all health care practitioners. To achieve this goal, we need to perform studies that determine the value of these measures. In this article, we discuss the possible study designs that can be used for evaluating new approaches to prevention and treatment. The gold standard study design is a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial. In many instances, a randomized controlled trial may not be ethically or practically feasible. Other study types, such as case series, case-control studies, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, crossover designs, and open-label studies, may be required to hypothesize and evaluate the link between an exposure or predictor variable and an outcome variable. Various study types pertaining to neonatal-perinatal medicine are reviewed in this article.

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.

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)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.705
GPT teacher head0.640
Teacher spread0.065 · 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