Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 1: A framework for researching clinical outcomes
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Metaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Consensus categories
- Metaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: ObservationalConsensus signal: Observational
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: none
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.535
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.081 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
Understanding and improving the prognosis of a disease or health condition is a priority in clinical research and practice. In this article, the authors introduce a framework of four interrelated themes in prognosis research, describe the importance of the first of these themes (understanding future outcomes in relation to current diagnostic and treatment practices), and introduce recommendations for the field of prognosis research
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.
The record
- Venue
- BMJ
- Topic
- Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Field
- Economics, Econometrics and Finance
- Canadian institutions
- Dalhousie University
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research CouncilEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilKeele UniversityUniversity of BirminghamUniversity of OxfordNova Scotia Health Research FoundationBritish Heart FoundationUniversity College LondonNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekWellcome TrustDalhousie UniversityCancer Research UKMedical Research CouncilVersus ArthritisLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchQueen Mary University of LondonRoyal SocietyNational Institute for Social Care and Health Research
- Keywords
- Relation (database)Field (mathematics)Clinical PracticeManagement scienceDiseaseMedicineOutcomes researchEngineering ethicsComputer scienceData scienceAlternative medicineNursingPathologyData mining
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes