MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025258436 · doi:10.1159/000346247

Incomplete Data in Randomized Dermatology Trials: Consequences and Statistical Methodology

2013· article· en· W2025258436 on OpenAlexaff
Michael A. McIsaac, Richard J. Cook, Melanie Poulin-Costello

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsAmgen (Canada)University of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)MedicinePsychological interventionClinical trialRandomized controlled trialIntensive care medicineMEDLINEMedical physicsSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Randomized clinical trials can provide the highest level of evidence regarding the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions. When individuals in trials do not complete the planned treatment period it is often not possible to observe the desired outcomes, which results in incomplete data. Here we review various mechanisms which can lead to incomplete data, discuss the impact of these mechanisms, and present strategies for dealing with incomplete data. We discuss these issues in the context of clinical trials in dermatology and provide practical recommendations for planning and drawing conclusions from studies which could involve incomplete data.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.587
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.587
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.835
GPT teacher head0.626
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatologySame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207