Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 2: Prognostic Factor Research
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Metaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Consensus categories
- Metaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Not applicableConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: ReviewConsensus signal: Review
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.715
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.343 | 0.315 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.102 | 0.083 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
Prognostic factor research aims to identify factors associated with subsequent clinical outcome in people with a particular disease or health condition. In this article, the second in the PROGRESS series, the authors discuss the role of prognostic factors in current clinical practice, randomised trials, and developing new interventions, and explain why and how prognostic factor research should be improved.
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.
The record
- Venue
- PLoS Medicine
- Topic
- Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Field
- Decision Sciences
- Canadian institutions
- Dalhousie University
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research CouncilEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilCenter for Translational Molecular MedicineCancer Research UKDalhousie UniversityNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchMedical Research CouncilVersus ArthritisLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineUniversity of BirminghamCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchQueen Mary University of LondonWellcomeNational Institute for Social Care and Health ResearchNova Scotia Health Research FoundationBritish Heart FoundationNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekWellcome Trust
- Keywords
- MedicineClinical trialPsychological interventionIntensive care medicineImpact factorDiseaseClinical researchRisk factorInternal medicine
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes