MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060343609 · doi:10.1198/000313007x188414

Early Evidence-Based Medicine

2007· article· en· W2060343609 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Statistician · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicProbability and Statistical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepresentativeness heuristicMedical statisticsStatisticianSample size determinationPopulationRandomizationSample (material)StatisticsHistoryRandomized controlled trialMedicineDemographyMathematicsSociologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The expression “evidence-based medicine” was probably coined at the McMaster University of Canada in the late 1980s and was largely supported by the science of statistics applied on medical research. The word “statistics” originated in eighteenth century Germany, its science, however, originated long before that. In this article we present some early clues of application of statistical principles on medicine from the Roman era, which, albeit rudimentary, contain many modern basic principles of statistics, like the concepts of sample size, mean, distribution of population, representativeness and randomization of the sample. Most clues come from Galen's writings and are probably cited for the first time with a statistical point of view. We also present one of the earlier randomized controlled trials of an antidote in history.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.214
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.250 · 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