Bibliographic record
Abstract
Letters17 December 2002Reflections on Medical JournalsDavid Moher, MSc, Kenneth F. Schulz, PhD, Douglas G. Altman, DSc, and Drummond Rennie, MDDavid Moher, MScUniversity of Ottawa; Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, CanadaFamily Health International; Research Triangle Park, NC 27709Centre for Statistics in Medicine; Oxford OX3 7LF, United Kingdom JAMA, Chicago, IL 60610; University of California, San Francisco; San Francisco, CA 94143Search for more papers by this author, Kenneth F. Schulz, PhDUniversity of Ottawa; Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, CanadaFamily Health International; Research Triangle Park, NC 27709Centre for Statistics in Medicine; Oxford OX3 7LF, United Kingdom JAMA, Chicago, IL 60610; University of California, San Francisco; San Francisco, CA 94143Search for more papers by this author, Douglas G. Altman, DScUniversity of Ottawa; Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, CanadaFamily Health International; Research Triangle Park, NC 27709Centre for Statistics in Medicine; Oxford OX3 7LF, United Kingdom JAMA, Chicago, IL 60610; University of California, San Francisco; San Francisco, CA 94143Search for more papers by this author, and Drummond Rennie, MDUniversity of Ottawa; Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, CanadaFamily Health International; Research Triangle Park, NC 27709Centre for Statistics in Medicine; Oxford OX3 7LF, United Kingdom JAMA, Chicago, IL 60610; University of California, San Francisco; San Francisco, CA 94143Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-137-12-200212170-00033 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail TO THE EDITOR:Dr. Kassirer makes statements about journals that, because he has not troubled to present data, are hard to check (1). Nevertheless, we were amused by his response to “Standardization,” particularly when he is attempting to determine whether progress has made medical journals better. He writes, “A small cadre of editors recently recommended that authors of original research papers standardize their content” and then pours scorn on such efforts as CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). Had he read the article he cites by Rennie (2), he would have realized that the effort sprang from a serious problem, ...Reference1. Kassirer JP. Reflections on medical journals: has progress made them better? [Editorial]. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:46-8. [PMID: 12093244] LinkGoogle Scholar2. Rennie D. CONSORT revised—improving the reporting of randomized trials [Editorial]. JAMA. 2001;285:2006-7. [PMID: 11308440] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273:408-12. [PMID: 7823387] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al . Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998;352:609-13. [PMID: 9746022] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA. 2001;285:1992-5. [PMID: 11308436] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: University of Ottawa; Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, CanadaFamily Health International; Research Triangle Park, NC 27709Centre for Statistics in Medicine; Oxford OX3 7LF, United Kingdom JAMA, Chicago, IL 60610; University of California, San Francisco; San Francisco, CA 94143 PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoReflections on Medical Journals: Has Progress Made Them Better? Jerome P. Kassirer Reflections on Medical Journals Jerome P. Kassirer Metrics Cited byComunicación científica 17 December 2002Volume 137, Issue 12Page: 1011-1012KeywordsCreativityObservational studiesRandomized trialsResearch reporting guidelinesScientists ePublished: 17 December 2002 Issue Published: 17 December 2002 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2002 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.215 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.037 | 0.032 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.073 | 0.031 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".