MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2443086342

The number remaining at risk: an adjunct to the number needed to treat.

2002· article· en· W2443086342 on OpenAlexaff
David Massel, Moira Cruickshank

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNumber needed to treatMedicineAbsolute risk reductionOdds ratioAdjunctAdverse effectConfidence intervalEvent (particle physics)Number needed to harmRelative riskStatisticsInternal medicineMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the number of patients needed to treat (NNT) to prevent an adverse clinical event is of great clinical value to practising physicians, it is limited in that it fails to provide a measure of prognosis among patients not achieving benefit. For example, if the NNT is 100, what is likely to happen to the other 99? The number remaining at risk (NRR), which is an index that enhances the value of the NNT, is described. The NRR is the ratio of the residual event rate among treated patients and the absolute reduction in outcome events (NRR = experimental event rate [EER]/control event rate [CER]-EER), where EER and CER are the event rates among experimental and control groups, respectively. This index represents the number of events likely to occur among the NNT, or the odds of experiencing an adverse outcome event as opposed to deriving benefit from therapy. The NRR is a simple index that can easily be calculated from the published results of a clinical trial. As an adjunct to the NNT, it provides a measure of the impact of therapy and the average prognosis of remaining patients.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.157
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.157
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.520
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.031 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207