Bibliographic record
Abstract
Randomized clinical trials often represent the highest level of clinical evidence available to evaluate the efficacy of an intervention in clinical medicine. Although the process of randomization serves to maximize internal validity, the external validity, or generalizability, of such studies depends on several factors determined at the design phase of the trial including eligibility criteria, study setting, and outcomes of interest. In general, explanatory trials are optimized to demonstrate the efficacy of an intervention in a highly selected patient group; however, findings from these studies may not be generalizable to the larger clinical problem. In contrast, pragmatic trials attempt to understand the real-world benefit of an intervention by incorporating design elements that allow for greater generalizability and clinical applicability of study results. In this article we describe the explanatory-pragmatic continuum for clinical trials in greater detail. Further, a well-accepted tool for grading trials on this continuum is described, and applied, to 2 recently published trials pertaining to the surgical management of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.300 | 0.584 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".