MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980971305 · doi:10.1186/1471-2407-14-260

The randomised clinical trial and the hazard ratio – medical research’s Emperor’s New Clothes?

2014· article· en· W1980971305 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Stephens, David J. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Cancer · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioStatisticRandomized controlled trialClinical trialHazardEmperorInternal medicineConfidence intervalStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the enthusiasm for individualized treatment and targeted therapies continues to gain momentum, it seems timely to re-assess whether our current research tools are fit for purpose. Randomized Clinical Trials compare groups of patients, the Hazard Ratio is a 'group summary statistic', and modeling shows that the same Hazard Ratio score could result from a number of scenarios. Thus the current tools do not provide definitive information as to how to treat an individual patient. We therefore need to concentrate on the use of predictive factor analyses to identify the characteristics of subgroups of patients who respond to specific treatments.

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)0.088
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.682
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.595
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0880.682
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.771
GPT teacher head0.673
Teacher spread0.098 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC CancerSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207