MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A framework for planning and critiquing medication compliance and persistence research using prospective study designs

2009· review· en· W2107264775 on OpenAlexaff
Femida Gwadry‐Sridhar, Elizabeth Manias, Ying Zhang, Anuja Roy, Kristina Yu-Isenberg, Dyfrig Hughes, Michael B. Nichol

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Therapeutics · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedication Adherence and Compliance
Canadian institutionsAcadia UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistMedicineCINAHLMEDLINEResearch designClinical study designPersistence (discontinuity)Prospective cohort studyHealth careFamily medicineClinical trialPsychological interventionNursingPsychologySurgery

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.557
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.485
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5570.485
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.014
Bibliometrics0.0160.011
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0140.011
Open science0.0130.011
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.916
GPT teacher head0.684
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Theoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations40
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueClinical TherapeuticsSame topicMedication Adherence and ComplianceFrench-language works237,207