Clinical Trials in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology: Applying the CONSORT Statement
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine how well therapeutic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology (JPP) met the CONSORT criteria as compared to pediatric trials in the Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology (JCCP), which served as a control. METHODS: Nine trials were found in JPP and 19 clinical trials were retrieved from JCCP. The modified Consort Checklist and Flow Chart was applied to each trial by two unblinded independent raters. RESULTS: The number of CONSORT items not reported between the two journals was strikingly similar. One half (11/22) of the CONSORT items were reported less than 25% of the time. Information provided on the flow of participants in the trials was similar across the two journals; however, JCCP more often reported on those assessed to be eligible overall, chi(2) = 5.241, p <.05. JPP reported on recruitment 33.3% of the time, while it was not reported at all in JCCP, chi(2) = 7.093, p <.05. CONCLUSIONS: Although many of the items in the CONSORT statement were not adhered to by the two psychological journals, most of the CONSORT items can clearly be applied to psychosocial trials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.746 | 0.183 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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