MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156981877 · doi:10.1128/jcm.00842-12

Promise versus Reality: Optimism Bias in Package Inserts for Tuberculosis Diagnostics

2012· review· en· W2156981877 on OpenAlex
Claudia M. Denkinger, Jasmine Grenier, Jessica Minion, Madhukar Pai

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart InstituteUniversity of AlbertaMcGill University
FundersEuropean and Developing Countries Clinical Trials PartnershipCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchU.S. Food and Drug Administration
KeywordsFood and drug administrationMedical physicsPackage insertOptimismTuberculosisMedicineR packageDiagnostic accuracyComputer scienceStatisticsPathologyPsychologyInternal medicineRisk analysis (engineering)MathematicsPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Laboratorians and clinicians often rely on package inserts of diagnostic tests to assess their accuracy. We compared test accuracy for tuberculosis diagnostics reported in 19 package inserts against estimates in published meta-analyses and found that package inserts generally report overoptimistic accuracy estimates. However, package inserts of most tests approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or endorsed by the World Health Organization provide more realistic estimates that agree with meta-analyses.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.440
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.065 · 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