MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126486918 · doi:10.1038/sj.sc.3102010

Guidelines for the conduct of clinical trials for spinal cord injury as developed by the ICCP panel: clinical trial design

2006· review· en· W2126486918 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel P. Lammertse, Mark H. Tuszynski, John D. Steeves, Armin Curt, James W. Fawcett, Charlotte Ulrikka Rask, John F. Ditunno, Michael G. Fehlings, James D. Guest, P H Ellaway, Naomi Kleitman, Andrew R. Blight, Bruce H. Dobkin, Robert G. Grossman, Hiroyuki Katoh, Alain Privat, Michael Kalichman

Bibliographic record

VenueSpinal Cord · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institutes of HealthSpinalCure AustraliaInternational Collaboration on Repair DiscoveriesMinistry of Education, IndiaParalyzed Veterans of AmericaChristopher and Dana Reeve Foundation
KeywordsClinical trialMedicineSpinal cord injuryClinical study designPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialResearch designPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedical physicsSpinal cordSurgeryPsychiatryPathology

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)0.495
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.429
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4950.429
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.032
Bibliometrics0.0130.015
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0190.007
Open science0.0140.008
Research integrity0.0250.035
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.018

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 head0.942
GPT teacher head0.728
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
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

Citations189
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSpinal CordSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207