MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558674288 · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30572-1

Relevance of randomised controlled trials in oncology

2016· review· en· W2558674288 on OpenAlexaff
Ian F. Tannock, Eitan Amir, Christopher M. Booth, Saroj Niraula, Alberto Ocaña, Boštjan Šeruga, Arnoud J. Templeton, Francisco Vera-Badillo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Oncology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaQueen's UniversityCancerCare ManitobaUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialRelevance (law)MedicineClinical trialMedical physicsIntensive care medicineSurrogate endpointClinical significanceAlternative medicineMEDLINEPhysical therapyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.118
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.406
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1180.406
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.010
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0110.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations117
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet OncologySame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207