MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2251535213 · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2016.01.018

Impactful Clinical Trials of 2015: What Clinicians Need to Know

2016· article· en· W2251535213 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Narendra Singh, Milan Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Cardiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityCanadian Respiratory Research Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIdarucizumabEzetimibePercutaneous coronary interventionAcute coronary syndromeIntensive care medicineMyocardial infarctionClinical trialRandomized controlled trialDabigatranAtrial fibrillationInternal medicineDyslipidemiaEmpagliflozinCardiologyStatinRivaroxabanWarfarinDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesDisease

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)0.313
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.571
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3130.571
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.008
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0200.030
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0200.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.004

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.273 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Cardiology→Same topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies→French-language works237,207→