MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899153819 · doi:10.3205/17ebm001

The quality of clinical research is often discussed but rarely defined – a systematic survey and proposal for a comprehensive framework of clinical research quality

2017· article· en· W2899153819 on OpenAlexaff
Belinda von Niederhäusern, Lars G. Hemkens, Marie Mi Bonde, Nicole Brunner, Marielle Rutquist, Gordon Guyatt, Matthias Briel, Christiane Pauli‐Magnus

Bibliographic record

VenueGerman Medical Science (German Research Foundation) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Clinical researchSystematic reviewMedicineMEDLINEPolitical scienceEpistemologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: While the quality of clinical research is often criticized, there is no underlying consensus on a definition of the term “quality” yet. Objectives: (1) To systematically survey definitions of quality in clinical research; and (2) to develop a conceptual framework of criteria[for full text, please go to the a.m. URL]

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 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)0.924
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.908
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.9240.908
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0070.034
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0150.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.953
GPT teacher head0.776
Teacher spread0.177 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGerman Medical Science (German Research Foundation)Same topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207