MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093081815 · doi:10.1159/000089379

Common Pitfalls in the Conduct of Clinical Research

2005· review· en· W2093081815 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

VenueMedical Principles and Practice · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, paradigm shift from expert opinion towards evidence-based medicine has occurred encouraging physicians to base their treatment decisions on the best available research evidence. In the hierarchy of evidence randomized clinical trials (level 1 evidence) are considered of the highest quality (least biased) while non-randomized studies represent lower levels (levels 2-4). Several pitfalls in the design and conduct of clinical research include: lack of randomization, lack of concealment, lack of blinding, and errors in hypothesis testing (type I and II errors). A basic understanding of these principles of research will empower both investigators and readers when applying the results of research to clinical practice.

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)0.223
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.592
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2230.592
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.023
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 head0.957
GPT teacher head0.796
Teacher spread0.161 · 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