MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769705992 · doi:10.1016/j.burns.2017.11.001

Burn clinical trials: A systematic review of registration and publications

2017· review· en· W2769705992 on OpenAlexafffund
Sarthak Sinha, Grace H. Yoon, Wisoo Shin, Jeff Biernaskie, Duncan Nickerson, Vincent Gabriel

Bibliographic record

VenueBurns · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Children's Hospital Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionClinical trialMEDLINEConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsTrial registrationSample size determinationSystematic reviewRandomized controlled trialEmergency medicineFamily medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.143
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.143
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.011
Bibliometrics0.0190.028
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.563
GPT teacher head0.577
Teacher spread0.014 · 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 designSystematic review
DomainReporting
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueBurnsSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207