MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099419891 · doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(03)00100-4

The role of the data coordinating center in the IRB review and approval process: the DIG trial experience

2003· article· en· W2099419891 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph F. Collins, Rekha Garg, Koon Teo, William O. Williford, Cindy L Howell, on behalf of the DIG Investigators

Bibliographic record

VenueControlled Clinical Trials · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Hospital EdmontonUniversity of Alberta Hospital
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsInstitutional review boardHuman servicesInformed consentClinical trialMedicineFamily medicineEthics committeeClinical researchHuman researchMedical educationBusinessPsychologyPolitical scienceAlternative medicineLawPublic administrationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.584
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.531
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5840.531
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0060.019
Scholarly communication0.0210.015
Open science0.0060.012
Research integrity0.0120.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.762
GPT teacher head0.688
Teacher spread0.074 · 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
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueControlled Clinical TrialsSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207