MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2388340649

Assessment of English Translations of Chinese Titles of Clinical Trials Published in Medical Journals

2002· article· en· W2388340649 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Min Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueHuaxi yixue · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpellingMedicineProofreadingGrammarClinical trialArabicLinguisticsNatural language processingInternal medicineComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective:To accelerate the establishment and exchange of Cochrane Chinese clinical trial register,by accessing the quality of English translations of chinese title of clinical trials published in medical journals.Design:Cross sectional study.Method:Proofreading and registering the Chinese and English titles of clinical trials published in five medical journals in Procite software.Results:Among 341 records of the English translations affiliated in the original journals,there were 101 RCTs and 240 CCTs.The proportions of four essential factors(containing intervention,disease,participant and outcome in the titles)and three essential factors(one absence from the four factors)were 34 3% and 46 3%,respectively.The final outcomes of proofreading include:mistakes in translating 2 3%(8/341),in grammar 2 6%(9/341)and in spelling 5 0%(17/341).The proportion of English translations not conforming to the original Chinese titles added up to 27 0%(92/341),25 of which had improvement comparing with the original Chinese titles.The format of the English titles was not in accordance with the Vancouver standard style.There were another 341 records handsearched and translated by clinicians,including 261 RCTs and 80 CCTs.The titles containing four essential factors were 148(43 4%),while the three essential factors were 124(36 4%).Proofreading showed:mistakes in translating 7 9%(21/341),in grammar 13 5%(46/341),in spelling 10 0%(34/341)and in format 7 3%(25/341).There were 18 4%(63/341)which didn't conform to the original Chinese titles,among which,7 were improved comparing with the original Chinese titles.Conclusion:It remains to be improved in thenot conform to original titlewhen doing English translations in the original journals.The English translations by clinicians should also be improved and attention should be paid in the mistakes in translating,grammar and spelling.Careful checking by the journal editors,translators and proofreaders can improve the quality improvement of the English translations.

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 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)0.376
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.796
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3760.796
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0230.018
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.580
GPT teacher head0.646
Teacher spread0.066 · 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 designObservational
DomainReporting
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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuaxi yixueSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207