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 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)0.429
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.704
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4290.704
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0280.027
Open science0.0040.010
Research integrity0.0120.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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