MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2626177949 · doi:10.15173/m.v1i27.961

The Incentive Bias: Subject Underreporting of Adverse Drug Effects

2016· article· en· W2626177949 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Matthew Breton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Meducator · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentiveSubject (documents)Adverse effectDrugHealth economicsMedicinePublic economicsEconomicsEnvironmental healthPharmacologyPublic healthComputer scienceMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I discuss my experience participating in a clinical trial and my encounters with other subjects. Through this unique position I gained the perspective of the typical study participant, which led to the discovery of fears which deter subjects from reporting symptoms. This incentive bias is caused by the financial duress of many participants, resulting in a high incentive to complete the study. Changes in health go unreported reported which skews adverse drug reaction data and leads to additional costs imposed to healthcare. Clinical trials should strive to eliminate incentive bias to improve the transparency and increase reporting fidelity.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.258
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe MeducatorSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207