MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107533226 · doi:10.1542/peds.2012-0055i

Standard 6: Age Groups for Pediatric Trials

2012· review· en· W2107533226 on OpenAlexaffabout
Katrina Williams, Denise Thomson, Iva Seto, Despina G. Contopoulos‐Ioannidis, John P. A. Ioannidis, Sarah Curtis, Evelyn Constantin, Gitanjali Batmanabane, Lisa Hartling, Terry P. Klassen

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaUniversity of ManitobaMontreal Children's HospitalMcGill University Health CentreCochraneUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialPediatricsPsychological interventionConfidence intervalMEDLINEClinical trialRelative riskPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

* Abbreviations: RCT — : randomized controlled trial SSRI — : selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor It has long been an axiom in clinical pediatrics that “children are not just little adults.” It has also been recognized that there are many changes from birth through childhood and the adolescent years. However, the full implications of pediatric age groupings for health care and research are still not adequately understood. There is still much to be discovered about children’s biological and psychological development and how these processes affect the effectiveness and efficacy of interventions. Trial design that accounts for age differences and promotes consistency in reporting of age-related data is essential to ensure the validity and clinical usefulness of pediatric trial data. A recent study highlighted variable treatment efficacy in children versus adults. In this study, 128 meta-analyses from Cochrane reviews, containing data on at least 1 adult and 1 pediatric randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a binary primary efficacy outcome, were reviewed.1 The authors found that in all except 1 case, the 95% confidence intervals could not exclude a relative difference in treatment efficacy between adults and children of >20%; in two-thirds of these cases, the relative difference in observed point estimates was >50%. The study also highlighted the paucity of RCTs in pediatrics; the median number of children per meta-analysis was 2.5 times smaller than the number of adults. Children and adults seem to have distinctive responses to treatments. For example, administration of phenobarbitones is useful for adults with cerebral malaria and is associated with decreased convulsions. However, in children, this drug is associated with increased 6-month mortality. Similarly, corticosteroids may offer survival benefit for adults with bacterial meningitis but not for children with the same condition. In acute traumatic brain injury, corticosteroids did not decrease mortality in adults, but there was a trend for increased mortality in children.1 In asthma, long-acting β2-agonists decreased … Address correspondence to Martin Offringa, MD, PhD, Senior Scientist and Program Head, Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Ave, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1X8. E-mail: martin.offringa{at}sickkids.ca

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)0.105
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.373
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1050.373
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.028
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0090.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1760.016

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 head0.441
GPT teacher head0.522
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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations535
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207