Randomized Phase II Trials: Inevitable or Inadvisable?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Article Tools STATISTICS IN ONCOLOGY Article Tools OPTIONS & TOOLS Export Citation Track Citation Add To Favorites Rights & Permissions COMPANION ARTICLES No companion articles ARTICLE CITATION DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.3343 Journal of Clinical Oncology - published online before print April 20, 2010 PMID: 20406933 Randomized Phase II Trials: Inevitable or Inadvisable? Hui K. GanxHui K. GanSearch for articles by this author , Axel GrotheyxAxel GrotheySearch for articles by this author , Gregory R. PondxGregory R. PondSearch for articles by this author , Malcolm J. MoorexMalcolm J. MooreSearch for articles by this author , Lillian L. SiuxLillian L. SiuSearch for articles by this author , Daniel SargentxDaniel SargentSearch for articles by this author Show More From the Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto; McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; and Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.26.3343 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables © 2010 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.270 | 0.964 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it