International Dialogue on the Public Reporting Of Clinical Trial Outcome and Results – PROCTOR Meeting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On the 28th and 29th March 2008, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), held a meeting on clinical trial results reporting in Ottawa.The meeting was called PROCTOR, an acronym for the Public Reporting Of Clinical Trials Outcomes and Results.The current system of reporting trial results requires change.Not all trials get reported and even those that do are often incompletely reported.The growing capacity of technology offers opportunities to complement reporting in traditional peer-reviewed journals with more detailed and widely accessible reporting of research results.The internet also allows data to be translated and packaged in various ways for different user groups.Identifying that we are at a crucial point for results reporting, CIHR decided to launch an international dialogue of constituencies interested in results reporting, aiming at contributing toward the development of international standards for results disclosure.This dialogue builds on the rich experience gained during the development of Ottawa Statements (http://ottawagroup.ohri. ca/) and the World Health Organization International Standards of Trial Registration (http:// www.who.int/ictrp/en/), also taking into account the plethora of guidelines and statements from groups such as CONSORT (www.consort-state- ment.org), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (http://www.icmje.org/clin_ trial07.pdf),and the International Conference on Harmonization (http://www.ich.org).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.404 | 0.443 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.074 | 0.132 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".