MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2623381354

Notice of Retraction: Jamal SA, et al. Effect of Nitroglycerin Ointment on Bone Density and Strength in Postmenopausal Women: A Randomized Trial.

2016· article· en· W2623381354 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard Eastell, Celeste J. Hamilton, Steven R. Cummings

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNoticeRandomized controlled trialSeriousnessRegretPostmenopausal womenMisrepresentationPhysical therapyFamily medicineInternal medicineLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor We wish to retract the article “Effect of Nitroglycerin Ointment on Bone Density and Strength in Postmenopausal Women: A Randomized Trial,”1 published in the February 23, 2011, issue of JAMA. In a report issued by an investigating committee appointed by Women’s College Hospital, affiliated with the University of Toronto, to investigate, in part, the availability of data relative to this study, the committee concluded, based on objective evidence, that Dr Jamal had falsified and/or fabricated data and used that data for statistical analysis. Dr Jamal was both the first and corresponding author and was responsible for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. None of the other coauthors were involved in the misrepresentation of these data. All of the authors recognize the seriousness of this issue. We regret that the results of this study have been compromised and are committed to correcting the medical literature.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.152
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.152
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0050.001
Research integrity0.0130.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.008

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.304 · 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
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207