MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Composite End Points in Clinical Trials of Heart Failure Therapy

2017· article· en· W2575904277 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Heart Failure · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsCanadian VIGOUR CentreUniversity of Alberta
FundersServierCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates - Health SolutionsAmgen
KeywordsStatisticsComposite indexClinical trialRank (graph theory)Heart failureConsistency (knowledge bases)Mann–Whitney U testMedicineComposite numberIndex (typography)MathematicsPhysical therapyComputer scienceEconometricsComposite indicatorInternal medicineArtificial intelligenceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Composite end points are popular outcomes in clinical trials of heart failure therapies. For example, a global rank composite is typically analyzed using a Mann-Whitney U test, and the results are summarized by the mean of ranks and a corresponding P value. The mean of ranks is uninformative, and a clinically meaningful estimate of the treatment effect is needed to communicate study results and facilitate an assessment of heterogeneity (the consistency of the effect across outcomes). The probability index is intuitive for clinicians, easy to calculate, and may be applied to various composites. We suggest a simple and familiar plot to assess heterogeneity across outcomes, which should be routine when analyzing composites. We think that the probability index provides an immediate and simple solution to an overt problem.

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.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.181
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.181
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.646
GPT teacher head0.607
Teacher spread0.038 · 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