MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2774246425 · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx798

Funding sources of practice-changing trials

2017· letter· en· W2774246425 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Semih Doğan, Mutsuko Yamamoto‐Ibusuki, Fabrice André

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Oncology · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prospective clinical trials drive the evolution of practices. They validate new medical approaches as well as improving knowledge related to a specific disease. Hypotheses tested in clinical trials are expected to be diverse and could include testing drug efficacy, treatment strategy like combination or sequencing, drug schedule, biomarkers, quality of life (QoL), prevention, etc. Clinical trials are also expensive [1]. They have two types of funding source: funding coming nonprofit, mainly public, organizations and funding coming from for-profit organizations, usually the bio-pharmaceutical industry.

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)0.294
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.735
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2940.735
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0170.024
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0160.009
Open science0.0080.013
Research integrity0.0120.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1020.051

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 head0.869
GPT teacher head0.694
Teacher spread0.176 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainIncentives
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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of OncologySame topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcareFrench-language works237,207