Elements of a clinical trial protocol for medical devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on a Class 2 limited risk hospital based clinical trial, and a subsequent project retrospective, Briggs and Ramer propose an expanded clinical trial protocol. Such an expanded protocol would be especially helpful for evaluating De Novo devices: new inventions which require new processes for full hospital integration. Since these new processes would often require training of nurses and supporting professionals, Briggs and Ramer suggest that nurse investigators could be very effective in carrying out such expanded protocol studies. We briefly describe the FDA approval process, the role of the nurse in evidence based medical device evaluation, the Ramer, et al. clinical trial, the proposed expanded clinical trial protocol, and candidate categories of devices that might employ the limited risk Class 2 Medical Device clinical trial protocol. The investigators look forward to carrying out such a medical device clinical trial in the near future.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.326 | 0.280 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.024 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".