MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992862353 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.1040031

Opportunities and challenges for improving the quality of reporting clinical research: CONSORT and beyond

2004· article· en· W1992862353 on OpenAlexaffvenue
David Moher

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurpriseCognitive dissonanceRandomized controlled trialDisconnectionQuality (philosophy)Consolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsAlternative medicineComputer scienceData scienceCognitionClinical trialMedicinePsychologySocial psychologyPathologyPsychiatryEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the only tangible evidence of their conduct. Yet historians may well view the first 50 years of reporting of RCTs with some surprise. They will encounter what might be described as a cognitive dissonance: a disconnection between the increasing

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)0.868
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.903
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.8680.903
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.008
Bibliometrics0.0220.020
Science and technology studies0.0080.076
Scholarly communication0.0280.057
Open science0.0150.022
Research integrity0.0320.057
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.936
GPT teacher head0.618
Teacher spread0.318 · 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
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

Citations84
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207