MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409630622 · doi:10.1007/978-1-59745-530-5_1

Study Design: The Basics

2007· review· en· W2409630622 on OpenAlexaff
Hyun J. Lim, Raymond G. Hoffmann

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatchewan Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlindingManagement scienceResearch designComputer scienceInterpretation (philosophy)Clinical study designData scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)Artificial intelligenceMedicineStatisticsEngineeringMathematicsClinical trialPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In biomedical research, meaningful conclusions can only be drawn based on data collected from a valid scientific design using appropriate statistical methods. Therefore, the selection of an appropriate study design is important in order to provide an unbiased and scientific evaluation of the research questions. In this chapter, the different kinds of experimental studies commonly used in biology and medicine are introduced. A brief survey of basic experimental study designs, randomization, blinding, possible biases, issues in data analysis, and interpretation of the study results are mainly provided.

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)0.069
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.234
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0690.234
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.860
GPT teacher head0.740
Teacher spread0.120 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207