MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100713463 · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2003.09.022

Considerations on sample size and power calculations in randomized clinical trials

2003· article· en· W2100713463 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

VenueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsFowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSample size determinationStatistical powerSample (material)Randomized controlled trialMedical physicsComputer scienceResearch designStatisticsClinical trialType I and type II errorsClinical study designPower (physics)Data sciencePsychologyManagement scienceData miningMedicineMathematicsEngineeringPhysicsSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many studies in orthopaedics and sports medicine have not considered sample size or statistical power as important issues in study design. This article addresses the importance of a sample size calculation in randomized clinical trials and the components of the calculations that researchers must consider in their preliminary planning of an investigation. The types of data being collected, level of significance, types I and II errors, and power are also addressed.

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)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.769
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.769
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.429
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.123 · 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