Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Food and Drug Administration. Developing guidance on conducting scientifically sound pharmacoepidemiologic safety studies using large electronic healthcare data sets: public workshop: request for comments. Fed Regist. 2008;73 (79):21963-21964. 2. Food and Drug Administration. The Sentinel Initiative: national strategy for monitoring medical product safety. http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/advance/reports /report0508.pdf. Accessed July 17, 2008. 3. Misbin RI. Medical office review of Avandia: application number: 021071: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID= 1325. Accessed July 17, 2008. 4. Kahn SE, Haffner SM, Heise MA, et al; ADOPT Study Group. Glycemic durability of rosiglitazone, metformin, or glyburide monotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355(23):2427-2443. 5. Gerstein HC, Yusuf S, Bosch J, et al. Effect of rosiglitazone on the frequency of diabetes in patients with impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006;368(9541):1096-1105. 6. Home PD, Pocock SJ, Beck-Nielsen H, et al. Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiac Outcomes and Regulation of Glycemia in Diabetes (RECORD) Study: interim findings on cardiovascular hospitalizations and deaths. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357(1):28-38. 7. Nissen SE, Wolski K. Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(24):2457-2472. 8. Vandenbroucke J. Observational research, randomised trials, and two views of medical science. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e67; supplemental material. http://medicine .plosjournals.org/archive/1549-1676/5/3/supinfo/10.1371_journal.pmed.0050067 .sd001.pdf. 9. Joffe HV, Parks M, Meyer R, Jenkins J, Temple R. Rosiglitazone and the FDA. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(17):1775-1776. 10. Psaty BM, Ray W. FDA guidance on off-label promotion and the state of the literature from sponsors. JAMA. 2008;299(16):1949-1951. 11. Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. HR 3580, enacted by the House and Senate, Pub L No. 110-85. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov /cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_billsd147(8):573-577. 13. Rossouw JE; Writing Group for the Women’s Health Initiative. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002; 288(3):321-333. 14. ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. Major outcomes in moderately hypercholesterolemic, hypertensive patients randomized to pravastatin vs usual care: the Antihypertensive and LipidLowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT-LLT). JAMA. 2002; 288(23):2998-3007. 15. Gerstein HC; Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group. Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(24):2545-2559.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.369 | 0.304 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".