MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897092992 · doi:10.1177/1536867x1801800206

Attrition Diagrams for Clinical Trials and Meta-analyses in Stata

2018· article· en· W2897092992 on OpenAlexaff
Christiaan H. Righolt, Salaheddin M. Mahmud

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Stata Journal Promoting communications on statistics and Stata · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttritionDocumentationComputer scienceDiagramSet (abstract data type)Programming languageDatabaseMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we present attrition, a suite of commands to simplify the maintenance and documentation of implemented exclusion criteria and attrition conditions using standard Stata facilities and to generate an attrition diagram. attrition can be used, both from the command line and in do-files, to keep the diagram up to date with the analysis it documents. Six subcommands (set, exclude, count, tab, list, graph) allow the diagram to be constructed in a versatile way.

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

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
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Software
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Software
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models agreeAgreement 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)0.189
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.546
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1890.546
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.010
Bibliometrics0.0160.012
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1180.020

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 head0.985
GPT teacher head0.750
Teacher spread0.235 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Stata Journal Promoting communications on statistics and StataSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207