MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800306154 · doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.12.074

Understanding the patient perspective on research access to national health records databases for conduct of randomized registry trials

2018· article· en· W2800306154 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert Avram, Guillaume Marquis‐Gravel, François Simard, Christine Pacheco, Étienne Couture, Maxime Tremblay‐Gravel, Olivier Desplantie, Isabelle Malhamé, Lior Bibas, Samer Mansour, Marie-Claude Parent, Paul Farand, Luc Harvey, Marie-Gabrielle Lessard, Hung Q. Ly, Geoffrey Liu, Annette E. Hay

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cardiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkHôtel-Dieu de MontréalHotel Dieu HospitalMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeQueen's UniversityUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
FundersNetworks of Centres of Excellence of CanadaFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialInterquartile rangeDatabaseConfidence intervalFamily medicineIdentifierClinical trialMedical recordInternal 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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.308
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.308
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.931
GPT teacher head0.739
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Metaresearch

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designQualitative · Observational
DomainMethods
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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of CardiologySame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207