MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100741073 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001380

Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 2: Prognostic Factor Research

2013· review· en· W2100741073 on OpenAlexafffund
Richard D Riley, Jill A. Hayden, Ewout W. Steyerberg, Karel G.M. Moons, Keith R. Abrams, P. Kyzas, Núria Malats, Andrew Briggs, Sara Schroter, Douglas G. Altman, Harry Hemingway

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersEconomic 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
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialPsychological interventionIntensive care medicineImpact factorDiseaseClinical researchRisk factorInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.The Guidelines and Guidance section contains advice on conducting and reporting medical research.

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)0.074
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.131
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0740.131
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.008
Bibliometrics0.0120.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.012

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 head0.981
GPT teacher head0.718
Teacher spread0.263 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations811
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207