MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2010· article· en· W2571766406 on OpenAlexafffund
Kenneth F. Schulz, Douglas G. Altman, David Moher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
FundersMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleUniversity of OxfordNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCancer Research UKJanssen Scientific AffairsJohns Hopkins UniversityMcMaster UniversityOttawa Hospital Research InstituteUniversity of California, IrvineUniversity of OttawaJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsRigourMedicinePsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialNeglectClinical trialGold standard (test)Statement (logic)Alternative medicineMedical physicsPhysical therapyFamily medicineNursingSurgeryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Randomised controlled trials, when appropriately designed, conducted, and reported, represent the gold standard in evaluating healthcare interventions. However, randomised trials can yield biased results if they lack methodological rigour [1]. To assess a trial accurately, readers of a published report need complete, clear, and transparent information on its methodology and findings. Unfortunately, attempted assessments frequently fail because authors of many trial reports neglect to provide lucid and complete descriptions of that critical information [2–4].

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)0.281
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.522
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 score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2810.522
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.016
Bibliometrics0.0140.020
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0100.004
Research integrity0.0080.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.014

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 head0.976
GPT teacher head0.753
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations998
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical EpidemiologySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207