MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885961185 · doi:10.1136/bmj.k1614

Reporting of stepped wedge cluster randomised trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement with explanation and elaboration

2018· article· en· W2885961185 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityMcGill UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCollaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care - Greater ManchesterMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Health and Medical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
KeywordsConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsCluster (spacecraft)ElaborationCluster randomised controlled trialDelphi methodGuidelineComputer sciencePsychologyIntervention (counseling)MedicineRandomized controlled trialArtificial intelligenceNursingHumanitiesSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial (SW-CRT) is a novel cluster randomised trial variant that is increasingly being used. It is particularly relevant for evaluating service innovations in learning healthcare organisations There has been an exponential increase in the use of this design over the past few years with an expected increase in publications in the near future.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.011
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 head0.252
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.253 · 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