MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080813654 · doi:10.1002/sim.1173

Number needed to treat (NNT): estimation of a measure of clinical benefit

2001· article· en· W2080813654 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

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNumber needed to treatEstimatorContext (archaeology)Event (particle physics)MedicineRandomized controlled trialStatisticsAbsolute risk reductionClinical trialConfidence intervalEconometricsComputer scienceRelative riskMathematicsSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number needed to treat (NNT) is becoming increasingly popular as an index for reporting the results of randomized trials and other clinical studies. It represents the expected number of patients who must be treated with an experimental therapy in order to prevent one additional adverse outcome event (or, depending on the context, to expect one additional beneficial outcome), compared to the expected event rates under the control therapy. Although NNT is a clinically useful measure, little work has been done on its statistical properties. In this paper, alternative NNT-type measures are defined for use with discrete or continuous data. Estimators and their variances are obtained for these measures in cross-over or parallel group designs. The ideas are illustrated with data on quality of life in asthma patients.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.322
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.322
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.534
GPT teacher head0.627
Teacher spread0.093 · 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