MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084652988 · doi:10.1177/1740774507079439

Monitoring the randomized trials of the Women's Health Initiative: the experience of the Data and Safety Monitoring Board

2007· article· en· W2084652988 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

VenueClinical Trials · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSafety monitoringMedicineClinical trialRandomized controlled trialData monitoring committeeAdverse effectWomen's Health InitiativePostmenopausal womenBioinformaticsPharmacologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data Safety Monitoring Committees (DSMB) for large, long-term randomized trials of agents in common use face challenging problems especially when the emerging data indicate unanticipated effects. The DSMB for the Women's Health Initiative Clinical Trials, on observing early indication of a surprising adverse cardiovascular effect of post-menopausal hormones, spent several years deliberating what recommendations it should make. This paper describes the dilemmas faced by the DSMB and the considerations it made over the course of its existence. The paper concludes with some recommendations for other DSMBs.

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)0.151
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.156
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1510.156
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.561
GPT teacher head0.588
Teacher spread0.027 · 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