MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978340360 · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7446.975-c

US consumer group names “dirty dozen” dietary supplements

2004· article· en· W1978340360 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Janice Hopkins Tanne

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNephrotoxicity and Medicinal Plants
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDozenFood and drug administrationAdvertisingRevelationFor profitBusinessProfit (economics)Political scienceMedicineEnvironmental healthEconomicsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Americans can easily buy 12 dangerous dietary supplements over the counter or from theinternet, the latest (May) issue of Consumer Reports magazine says. At least five of these supplements are banned in Asia, Europe, or Canada. Consumer Reports (accessible at http://www.consumerreports.org/) is published by the non-profit Consumers Union, which tests products and services and aims to protect the public through information and advocacy. The revelation came in the same week that a federal judge finally upheld the US Food and Drug Administration's ban on ephedra, the stimulant …

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1590.076

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicNephrotoxicity and Medicinal PlantsFrench-language works237,207