MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017900496 · doi:10.1177/1740774506073463

Independent design and conduct of clinical trials

2006· article· en· W2017900496 on OpenAlexaff
Salim Yusuf, Jackie Bosch

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Trials · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCornerstoneIndependence (probability theory)Clinical trialRandomized controlled trialAlternative medicineMedicineIntervention (counseling)Intensive care medicineMedical physicsPsychologyPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have justifiably become the cornerstone for the evaluation of virtually any kind of intervention: drugs, surgical or diagnostic procedures, behavioural modifications, health policies and even systems of care. This commentary focuses on two issues related to independence in clinical trials: first, the independence to ask important questions, and second, independence from bias in the conduct, analysis and reporting of trials, which can lead to misleading conclusions. The most frequent type of RCT are those evaluating therapies, and much of this commentary will be focused on issues relevant to such trials, although the principles apply generally.

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)0.633
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.776
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6330.776
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.007
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0050.021
Scholarly communication0.0200.010
Open science0.0090.008
Research integrity0.0230.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.008

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 head0.959
GPT teacher head0.691
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TrialsSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207