MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793971788 · doi:10.1136/bmj.k959

Trials that say “maybe”: the disconnect between exploratory and confirmatory testing after drug approval

2018· article· en· W2793971788 on OpenAlex
Benjamin Gregory Carlisle, Carole A. Federico, Jonathan Kimmelman

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHarmClinical trialRepurposingExploratory researchPsychologyExploratory analysisMedicineSocial psychologyComputer scienceData scienceSociologySocial scienceInternal medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical trials that explore the repurposing of drugs for off-label uses are common. But without a commitment to rigorously testing the hypotheses generated by these exploratory trials, patients are put in harm’s way, argue <b>Benjamin Carlisle and colleagues</b>

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.306
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.135 · 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