MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986710173 · doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(03)00103-x

The role of the data coordinating center in the DIG trial

2003· article· en· W1986710173 on OpenAlexaff
William O. Williford, Joseph F. Collins, Anne Horney, Gail Kirk, Frances McSherry, Susan Stinnett, Cindy L Howell, Rekha Garg, Debra Egan, Salim Yusuf, on behalf of the DIG Investigators

Bibliographic record

VenueControlled Clinical Trials · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsHamilton General Hospital
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsDigDigitalisVeterans AffairsHeart failureClinical trialEjection fractionMedicineRandomized controlled trialCenter (category theory)Computer scienceInternal medicineComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.650
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.726
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6500.726
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.007
Bibliometrics0.0110.027
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0350.025
Open science0.0130.012
Research integrity0.0160.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.007

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 head0.944
GPT teacher head0.684
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueControlled Clinical TrialsSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207