MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151796218 · doi:10.2196/jmir.7.1.e5

The Internet and Clinical Trials: Background, Online Resources, Examples and Issues

2005· review· en· W2151796218 on OpenAlexaff
James Paul, Rachael Seib, Todd Prescott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Internet Research · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton General HospitalHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetClinical trialRandomized controlled trialMedicineMedical physicsComputer scienceWorld Wide WebSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both the Internet and clinical trials were significant developments in the latter half of the twentieth century: the Internet revolutionized global communications and the randomized controlled trial provided a means to conduct an unbiased comparison of two or more treatments. Large multicenter trials are often burdened with an extensive development time and considerable expense, as well as significant challenges in obtaining, backing up and analyzing large amounts of data. Alongside the increasing complexities of the modern clinical trial has grown the power of the Internet to improve communications, centralize and secure data as well as to distribute information. As more and more clinical trials are required to coordinate multiple trial processes in real time, centers are turning to the Internet for the tools to manage the components of a clinical trial, either in whole or in part, to produce lower costs and faster results. This paper reviews the historical development of the Internet and the randomized controlled trial, describes the Internet resources available that can be used in a clinical trial, reviews some examples of online trials and describes the advantages and disadvantages of using the Internet to conduct a clinical trial. We also extract the characteristics of the 5 largest clinical trials conducted using the Internet to date, which together enrolled over 26000 patients.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablemedium
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.932
GPT teacher head0.771
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Metaresearch

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
DomainMethods
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

Citations93
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Internet ResearchSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207