MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111912498 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)08277-6

Placebo-controlled trials and the Declaration of Helsinki

2002· article· en· W2111912498 on OpenAlexaff
John A. Lewis, Bertil Jönsson, Gottfried Kreutz, Cristina Sampaio, Barbara van Zwieten‐Boot

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeclaration of HelsinkiPlaceboDeclarationClinical trialMedicineHelsinki declarationPlacebo groupIntensive care medicineAlternative medicineInformed consentLawInternal medicinePolitical sciencePathology

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

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)0.272
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.363
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2720.363
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.008
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0040.018
Scholarly communication0.0120.006
Open science0.0100.003
Research integrity0.0480.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.014

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.215 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations100
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207