MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Planning a Randomized Clinical Trial

2004· article· en· W2327245934 on OpenAlexaff
Mohit Bhandari, Emil H. Schemitsch

Bibliographic record

VenueTechniques in Orthopaedics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlan (archaeology)Quality (philosophy)Sample (material)Clinical trialManagement scienceSample size determinationRandomized controlled trialProcess managementMedical physicsMedical educationSurgeryEngineeringPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary: A high-quality clinical study often requires as much time in planning and preparation as it does in its execution. Although there are hundreds of steps required in the development of a study plan, this article focuses on important considerations that should be addressed in all study plans. These include: 1) asking clinically important questions, 2) conducting comprehensive literature searches, 2) refining the study question after the literature search, 3) choosing the appropriate study methodology (eligibility and outcomes), 4) determining study sample size, 5) identifying research team members, 6) writing the complete study proposal, 7) obtaining ethics approval, and 8) applying for funding.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.368 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechniques in OrthopaedicsSame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207