MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154405481 · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-14-421

Trial-based clinical and economic analyses: the unhelpful quest for conformity

2013· article· en· W2154405481 on OpenAlexaff
David G. T. Whitehurst, Stirling Bryan

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Coastal HealthSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConformityMedicineClinical trialPositive economicsSocial psychologyPsychologyEconomicsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Where there is conformity across the findings, interpretation and implications of 'clinical' and 'economic' research, there is limited cause for concern. However, there is often unease when apparent contradictory conclusions are drawn from the same study. Given the ever increasing role for economic evaluation in healthcare decision making, this commentary challenges the necessity of compatibility between clinical and economic evaluation.

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)0.729
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.856
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7290.856
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.007
Bibliometrics0.0100.007
Science and technology studies0.0090.070
Scholarly communication0.0350.038
Open science0.0210.015
Research integrity0.0440.081
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.875
GPT teacher head0.633
Teacher spread0.242 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations28
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207