MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066131559 · doi:10.3109/13697137.2012.656004

NNT, number needed to treat: does it have any real value?

2012· article· en· W2066131559 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

VenueClimacteric · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNumber needed to treatMedicineNumber needed to harmStatisticianIntervention (counseling)HarmAdverse effectAbsolute risk reductionValue (mathematics)Intensive care medicineRelative riskConfidence intervalStatisticsInternal medicinePsychiatryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical trials usually use the relative risk (rate ratio or hazard ratio) to compare the effects of one treatment modality with others. However, the numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) are sometimes used as another way of presenting an estimate of the effect of a medical intervention, pointing at the number of patients needed to be exposed over a certain period of time in order to achieve one beneficial or adverse event. For clinicians and patients, this is a very simple and clear tool to demonstrate the consequences of a specific intervention. Epidemiologists and statisticians are more cautious with interpretations of data of that sort. This article brings the relevant perspectives of a clinician, an epidemiologist and a statistician in regard to the value of NNT/NNH.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.483
GPT teacher head0.575
Teacher spread0.092 · 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