MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015678475 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.091481

Is bigger better? An argument for very low starting doses

2010· article· en· W2015678475 on OpenAlexaffvenue
James McCormack, G. Michael Allan, AminR Virani

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsResponse Biomedical (Canada)University of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)Computer scienceMedicineProduct (mathematics)Intensive care medicineInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For years, we and others have advocated starting treatment of chronic indolent conditions at doses lower than those typically recommended in the product monographs.[1][1] The approach we recommend is to use a very low dose when starting a new medication if the condition is not life-threatening or

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)0.090
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.324
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0900.324
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0060.016
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0190.040
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.316
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.135 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations45
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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