MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131470908 · doi:10.1016/s0735-1097(01)01713-2

Meta-analysis of randomized and registry comparisons of ticlopidine with clopidogrel after stenting

2002· review· en· W2131470908 on OpenAlexaff
Deepak L. Bhatt, Michel E. Bertrand, Peter B. Berger, Philippe L. L’Allier, Issam Moussa, Jeffrey W. Moses, George Dangas, Megumi Taniuchi, John M. Lasala, David R. Holmes, Stephen G. Ellis, Eric J. Topol

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Cardiology · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTiclopidineClopidogrelMedicineTolerabilityMaceInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectCardiologyPercutaneous coronary interventionLoading doseClinical endpointAnesthesiaMyocardial infarction

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.034
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations365
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of CardiologySame topicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular DiseasesFrench-language works237,207