Bibliographic record
Abstract
The media must become more critical of unproven interventions One of the more fascinating medical stories of recent times was that surrounding the findings of the women's health initiative trial of hormone replacement therapy. This was not simply because the findings were so significant, in challenging long held assumptions about the merits of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in disease prevention. Of equal interest has been the diversity of the medical profession's response to the findings. The trial, part of which was published last year ( JAMA 2002;288:321-33), showed increased risk of cardiovascular events from continuous combined oestrogen-progestogen hormone replacement, although it showed benefits for hip fractures and bowel cancer. The relative risks for invasive breast cancer, coronary heart disease, and stroke were increased, although the absolute risks were small. Soon after the study's publication, Canadian epidemiologist Professor David Sackett wrote of the “arrogance” of preventive medicine in promoting unproven interventions and estimated that hundreds of thousands …
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.034 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.007 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".