MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Strength of the Evidence Generated From Reports of Clinical Research

2003· article· en· W1973778794 on OpenAlexaff
Eleftherios C. Vamvakas

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion Alternatives in Transfusion Medicine · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsCanadian Blood ServicesUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfoundingPopulationClinical psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARy Positive or negative findings in clinical research may represent true‐positive or true‐negative results, which reflect a relationship that does or does not exist in the reference population of interest. Alternatively, positive or negative findings in clinical research may represent false‐positive or false‐negative results, which are due to chance, bias, and/or confounding factors. If such alternative explanations for the results of a study have been ruled out, a valid statistical association is reported. A judgment of a cause‐and‐effect relationship is based on the totality of all available evidence, and it can also be made from a large, double‐blind, and correctly conducted and analyzed randomized controlled trial.

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)0.349
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.765
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.802

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3490.765
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.022
Bibliometrics0.0330.024
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0180.011
Open science0.0110.010
Research integrity0.0140.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.868
GPT teacher head0.642
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designSystematic review
DomainReporting
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusion Alternatives in Transfusion MedicineSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207