One core laboratory at two international sites, is that feasible? An inter‐core laboratory and intra‐observer variability study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess the magnitude of differences in QCA outcomes between two cooperating core laboratories in a single trial, we have carried out an inter-core laboratory variability study. Two QCA experts at the Montreal Heart Institute and Heart Core Leiden both analyzed 32 lesions (pre- and post-intervention) in accordance with previously agreed upon standard operating procedures. One of the experts analyzed the whole image set twice to determine the intraobserver variability. The inter-core laboratory differences in the acute gain (n = 31 pairs) are non-significant. The systematic errors of the individual measurements (n = 63 analyses) show an excellent intraclass correlation coefficient of reliability (>75%), except for the stent length (67.7%). The corresponding random errors are small. In general, the intra-observer systematic and random errors are both slightly smaller than those for the inter-core laboratory study. QCA analyses in clinical trials can be carried out in core laboratories at two different locations if and only if highly standardized conditions are maintained.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it