Updating Clinical Endpoint Definitions
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Consensus categories
- Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: ObservationalConsensus signal: Observational
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.058
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.999
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
The 6-Minute Walk Distance (6-MWD) has been the most utilized endpoint for judging the efficacy of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) therapy in clinical trials conducted over the past two decades. Despite its simplicity, widespread use in recent trials and overall prognostic value, the 6-MWD has often been criticized over the past several years and pleas from several PAH experts have emerged from the literature to find alternative endpoints that would be more reliable in reflecting the pulmonary vascular resistance as well as cardiac status in PAH and their response to therapy. A meeting of PAH experts and representatives from regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies was convened in early 2012 to discuss the validity of current as well as emerging valuable endpoints. The current work represents the proceedings of the conference.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Pulmonary Circulation
- Topic
- Pulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
- Field
- Medicine
- Canadian institutions
- University of Alberta
- Funders
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
- Keywords
- MedicineClinical endpointClinical trialEndpoint DeterminationSurrogate endpointIntensive care medicineMedical physicsInternal medicine
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes