MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057713439 · doi:10.1159/000051263

Interrater Reliability of the Modified Jadad Quality Scale for Systematic Reviews of Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Trials

2001· article· en· W2057713439 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

VenueDementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJadad scaleInter-rater reliabilityDrug trialReliability (semiconductor)Clinical trialDiseaseIntraclass correlationPsychologyMedicineRating scalePhysical therapyPsychometricsClinical psychologyRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drug therapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) have been evaluated in clinical trials over the past 2 decades. Systematic reviews of AD drug trials can shed more light on the efficacy of pharmaceutical interventions. The modified Jadad scale can be used to assess the quality of trial reports that are candidates for inclusion in these systematic reviews. The interrater reliability of the modified Jadad scale was examined during such a review. Three blinded reviewers rated the quality of 42 AD drug trial reports: the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.90. The modified Jadad scale appears to be a useful tool for AD research because of the very good interrater reliability. Also, it is composed of items that are well suited to the specific disease characteristics of AD. Further research should focus on the validity of this instrument.

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)0.134
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.092
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1340.092
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.531
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.023 · 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