MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161756110 · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr608

How valid are claims for synergy in published clinical studies?

2012· article· en· W2161756110 on OpenAlexaff
Alberto Ocaña, Eitan Amir, Celine Yeung, Boštjan Šeruga, Ian F. Tannock

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialDrugClinical study designPhases of clinical researchOncologyIntensive care medicinePharmacologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.582
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.903
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5820.903
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.015
Bibliometrics0.0140.014
Science and technology studies0.0040.029
Scholarly communication0.0210.024
Open science0.0120.012
Research integrity0.0260.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.763
GPT teacher head0.611
Teacher spread0.152 · 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 designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations54
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of OncologySame topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207