MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108069441 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.1021197

Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 1. Relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat

2004· review· en· W2108069441 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alexandra Barratt

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReduction (mathematics)Absolute risk reductionNumber needed to treatIntervention (counseling)MedicineAbsolute (philosophy)Relative riskComputer scienceMathematicsInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physicians, patients and policy-makers are influenced not only by the results of studies but also by how authors present the results.[1][1],[2][2],[3][3],[4][4] Depending on which measures of effect authors choose, the impact of an intervention may appear very large or quite small, even though the

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)0.117
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.393
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1170.393
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.005
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0120.035
Open science0.0100.005
Research integrity0.0230.037
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.012

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations201
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207