MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2581059334 · doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1743-0

Review and publication of protocol submissions to Trials – what have we learned in 10 years?

2016· letter· en· W2581059334 on OpenAlexaff
Tianjing Li, Isabelle Boutron, Rustam Al‐Shahi Salman, Erik Cobo, Ella Flemyng, Jeremy Grimshaw, Douglas G. Altman

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
FundersBritish Heart FoundationCancer Research UK
KeywordsProtocol (science)MedicineClinical trialPublishingAlternative medicineMedical educationMedical physicsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trials has 10 years of experience in providing open access publication of protocols for randomised controlled trials. In this editorial, the senior editors and editors-in-chief of Trials discuss editorial issues regarding managing trial protocol submissions, including the content and format of the protocol, timing of submission, approaches to tracking protocol amendments, and the purpose of peer reviewing a protocol submission. With the clarification and guidance provided, we hope we can make the process of publishing trial protocols more efficient and useful to trial investigators and readers.

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 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)0.552
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.566
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5520.566
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0760.004

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 head0.934
GPT teacher head0.659
Teacher spread0.275 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations73
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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