MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090625321 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.090217

Clinical trials: the balance between protecting participants and promoting drug and product development

2009· article· en· W2090625321 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Miriam Shuchman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationBureaucracyClinical trialProduct liabilityBalance (ability)Product (mathematics)LiabilityMedicineDrug developmentDrug industryDrugEngineering ethicsBusinessPublic relationsPolitical scienceMedical educationPharmacologyLawAccountingPathologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

They have been called bureaucratic, cumbersome, a liability to the drug and research industries, and even harmful to patients. In fact, so maligned have research ethics boards been in Canada that they have spurred demands for the introduction of national accreditation centralized review for clinical

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.471
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.486
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4710.486
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.085
Scholarly communication0.0260.024
Open science0.0070.016
Research integrity0.0410.049
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.266
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207