MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102783876 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.051484

What is the best evidence for determining harms of medical treatment?

2006· letter· en· W2102783876 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jan P. Vandenbroucke

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2006
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionMedicineAlternative medicineBalance (ability)Intensive care medicineEvidence-based medicineAdverse effectPhysical therapySurgeryPathologyNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A proper balance of benefits and harms is necessary to assess the overall effect of medical interventions.[1][1] Most evidence on harms from medical treatments is obtained from observational research. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often not useful in determining rates of adverse effects:

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)0.114
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.503
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1140.503
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.013
Scholarly communication0.0080.023
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0410.044
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.008

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 head0.357
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.082 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations86
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207