MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038965113 · doi:10.1080/14647270600917263

Using evidence from randomized trials in fertility practice

2007· review· en· W2038965113 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Fertility · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialRelevance (law)External validityTest (biology)FertilityMedicineAlternative medicineIntensive care medicinePsychologyMedical physicsSocial psychologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are central to the understanding of treatment effectiveness and diagnostic test utility. If they are to be relied upon in clinical practice, data from trials should have three main attributes: validity (be free from bias); clinical relevance (be based on patients similar to your own, reporting outcomes that matter to them); and importance (demonstrate effect sizes that are large enough to justify the costs and risks entailed). With these principles in mind, this brief article reviews key questions to pose while deciding whether new evidence from RCTs should influence subfertility patient care.

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 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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.122
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.122
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.560
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.015 · 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