MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802614347 · doi:10.1002/cpt.1086

Real‐World Evidence: What It Is and What It Can Tell Us According to the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) Special Interest Group (SIG)

2018· letter· en· W2802614347 on OpenAlexaff
Hongbo Yuan, M. Sanni Ali, Emily Brouwer, Cynthia J. Girman, Jeff J. Guo, Jennifer L. Lund, Elisabetta Patorno, Jonathan L. Slaughter, Xuerong Wen, Dimitri Bennett

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsCanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyPharmacoepidemiologyMedicineFood and drug administrationReal world evidenceConfoundingComparative effectiveness researchQuality (philosophy)Alternative medicineFamily medicineMedical educationPharmacologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On December 8, 2016, the New England Journal of Medicine published a sounding board on Real World Evidence (RWE)1 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) leadership. While the value of RWE based on nonrandomized observational studies was appreciated, such as for hypothesis generating, safety, and measuring quality in healthcare delivery, the authors expressed concerns on the quality of data sources and the ability of methodologies to control for confounding. In response, we offer a few considerations regarding these concerns.

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)0.066
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.298
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0660.298
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.017
Scholarly communication0.0120.017
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0600.072
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.005

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 head0.866
GPT teacher head0.655
Teacher spread0.211 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations37
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Pharmacology & TherapeuticsSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207