MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130244829 · doi:10.1186/cc3013

Pro/con clinical debate: It is acceptable to stop large multicentre randomized controlled trials at interim analysis for futility. Pro: Futility stopping can speed up the development of effective treatments.

2004· article· en· W2130244829 on OpenAlexaff
David Schoenfeld, Maureen O. Meade

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialIntensive care medicineAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A few recent, large, well-publicized trials in critical care medicine have been stopped for futility. In the critical care setting, stopping for futility means that independent review committees have elected to stop the trial early--based on predetermined rules--since the likelihood of finding a treatment effect is low. For bedside clinicians the idea of futility in a clinical trial can be confusing. In the present article, two experts in the conduct of clinical trials debate the role of futility-stopping rules.

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)0.230
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.493
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2300.493
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.039
Scholarly communication0.0160.024
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0720.063
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.011

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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations32
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207