MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Checklist for Medication Compliance and Persistence Studies Using Retrospective Databases

2006· article· en· W2136950115 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew M. Peterson, David P. Nau, Joyce A. Cramer, Josh Benner, Femida Gwadry‐Sridhar, Michael B. Nichol

Bibliographic record

VenueValue in Health · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedication Adherence and Compliance
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistConsistency (knowledge bases)Retrospective cohort studyCompliance (psychology)Persistence (discontinuity)PharmacoeconomicsMedicineDatabaseFamily medicineComputer sciencePsychologyIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

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)0.165
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.271
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1650.271
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0220.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.376
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.067 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainReporting
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

Citations633
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueValue in HealthSame topicMedication Adherence and ComplianceFrench-language works237,207