MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028204553 · doi:10.1136/ewjm.174.5.325

Above all, do no harm: Assessing the risk of an adverse reaction

2001· review· en· W2028204553 on OpenAlexaff
Kate Turcotte

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern Journal of Medicine · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmAdverse effectRisk analysis (engineering)Intensive care medicineMedicinePsychologyInternal medicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New parents arrive in your office with their infant son.They have brought a magazine article describing a case of serious neurologic injury sustained by a little girl apparently as a result of routine vaccination.The parents are concerned that their son is at risk for a severe reaction to the DTP [diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis] vaccine.Although you believe that the benefits of vaccination generally outweigh the risks, you decide to review the current evidence.Using the National Library of Medicine's PubMed site on the Internet, you search using the terms pertussis, vaccination, and adverse effects, finding several randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort and case-control studies, and many review articles.You select and retrieve 2 RCTs, 2 large cohort studies, and 2 case-control studies that appear to address your question..........

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.323 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestern Journal of MedicineSame topicBacterial Infections and VaccinesFrench-language works237,207