MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2272628097 · doi:10.1136/bmj.h5453

Poor quality animal studies cause clinical trials to follow false leads

2015· letter· en· W2272628097 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nigel Hawkes

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Clinical trialIntensive care medicineMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A lack of rigour in animal studies is damaging the quality of research and can send clinical trials up blind alleys, wasting time and money, an international study has found.1 The findings were echoed in a second, unconnected study from McGill University in Montreal, Canada, which showed that animal trials of the kidney cancer drug sunitinib (Sutent) overestimated its effect by 45%.2 Both teams concluded that improvements are needed in how preclinical studies in animals are planned, organised, and published. Malcolm Macleod, of the University of Edinburgh, UK, who was lead author of the first study, told a briefing at the Science Media Centre in London that these methods were no secret, as they are already used in clinical trials in humans: randomisation, blinding, sample size calculations, and declarations of interest, for example. Macleod and colleagues1 used three …

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.854
GPT teacher head0.651
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207