MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063791455 · doi:10.1056/nejmsb033476

Data Safety and Monitoring Boards

2004· article· en· W2063791455 on OpenAlexaff
Arthur S. Slutsky, James V. Lavery

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineData monitoring committeeClinical trialInstitutional review boardSafety monitoringOn boardPublic relationsMedical emergencySurgeryPathologyBioinformaticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data safety and monitoring boards are part of many clinical trials. This Sounding Board article addresses the ethical issues facing board members when they make a decision to stop a clinical trial early or to continue it in the face of evidence that one treatment is more effective than another.

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)0.409
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.689
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4090.689
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.004
Bibliometrics0.0090.012
Science and technology studies0.0070.011
Scholarly communication0.0250.015
Open science0.0080.008
Research integrity0.0350.038
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.060

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 head0.468
GPT teacher head0.566
Teacher spread0.098 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations101
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207