MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045797278 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.k.01287

Use and Interpretation of Composite End Points in Orthopaedic Trials

2012· article· en· W2045797278 on OpenAlexaff
Jason W. Busse, Mohit Bhandari, Ignacio Ferreira‐González, Víctor M. Montori, Gordon Guyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityInstitute for Work & Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretation (philosophy)Event (particle physics)Orthopedic surgeryRandomized controlled trialComputer scienceMedicineMedical physicsPathologySurgeryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Randomized controlled trials in orthopaedics are often underpowered to detect important differences in outcomes. Composite end points (CEPs) hold promise as a strategy to address this issue by combining multiple end points into one summary measure, thus increasing the observed event rate. The use of CEPs by trialists, however, can be problematic when they include components that vary greatly in importance to patients and when differences in apparent effect between components are large. We present an overview of CEPs with a focus on appropriate design and interpretation of results.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.740
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.902
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7400.902
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.010
Bibliometrics0.0160.020
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0150.008
Open science0.0070.009
Research integrity0.0090.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.572
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.072 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207