MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The statistical significance of randomized controlled trial results is frequently fragile: a case for a Fragility Index

2014· review· en· W2164957370 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael Walsh, Sadeesh Srinathan, Daniel F. McAuley, Marko Mrkobrada, Oren Levine, Christine Ribic, Amber O. Molnar, Neil D. Dattani, Andrew Burke, Gordon Guyatt, Lehana Thabane, Stephen D. Walter, Janice Pogue, P.J. Devereaux

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWestern UniversityOttawa HospitalHealth Sciences CentreCanada Research ChairsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of OttawaManitoba HealthHamilton Health SciencesLondon Health Sciences CentreMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsFragilityRandomized controlled trialStatistical significanceMedicineIndex (typography)Sample size determinationInternal medicineStatisticsMathematics

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)0.620
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.913
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6200.913
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.012
Bibliometrics0.0160.012
Science and technology studies0.0040.026
Scholarly communication0.0120.022
Open science0.0080.011
Research integrity0.0110.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.864
GPT teacher head0.686
Teacher spread0.178 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations736
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical EpidemiologySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207