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 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)0.228
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.104
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2280.104
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.000

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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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