MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Specific instructions for estimating unclearly reported blinding status in randomized trials were reliable and valid

2011· article· en· W2059459105 on OpenAlexafffund
Elie A. Akl, Xin Sun, Jason W. Busse, Bradley C. Johnston, Matthias Briel, Sohail Mulla, John J. You, Dirk Bassler, François Lamontagne, Claudio Vera, Mohamad Alshurafa, Christina M. Katsios, Diane Heels‐Ansdell, Qi Zhou, Ed Mills, Gordon Guyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeInstitute for Work & HealthMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsBlindingRandomized controlled trialMedicineReliability (semiconductor)Clinical trialRandomizationMEDLINEResearch designStatisticsSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.344
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.819
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3440.819
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.014
Bibliometrics0.0160.008
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0200.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0830.025

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 head0.969
GPT teacher head0.696
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations179
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical EpidemiologySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207