MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2139983663 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.1041671

Clinical trial budgets

2005· letter· en· W2139983663 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Joseph A. Delaney

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria HospitalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialPoint (geometry)Computer scienceOperations researchMedicineData scienceMedical physicsPathologyEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We commend Salim Yusuf for his reply[1][1] to the call by Lorraine Ferris and David Naylor[2][2] for additional monitoring of clinical trials. Yusuf's point on the increasing complexity of regulation for clinical trial research is well taken, as is the point that complying with complex regulations

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)0.072
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.234
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0720.234
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0110.010
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0200.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2480.097

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 head0.416
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.155 · 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
DomainIncentives
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare→French-language works237,207→