MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2481029616 · doi:10.1136/bmj.c332

CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

2010· article· en· W2481029616 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancer Research UK
KeywordsConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsGroup (periodic table)Alternative medicineRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The CONSORT statement is used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials. Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the latest version, CONSORT 2010, which updates the reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience

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)0.228
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.518
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2280.518
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.021
Bibliometrics0.0150.019
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0100.005
Research integrity0.0090.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.021

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 head0.900
GPT teacher head0.642
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainReporting
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

Citations8,668
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207