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

Common Pitfalls in the Conduct of Clinical Research

2005· review· en· W2093081815 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Zlowodzki, Anders Jönsson, Mohit Bhandari

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.

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)0.650
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.760
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6500.760
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.015
Science and technology studies0.0050.044
Scholarly communication0.0120.012
Open science0.0080.010
Research integrity0.0130.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

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

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Principles and PracticeSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207