MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901016686 · doi:10.1186/s13063-018-3019-3

A core outcome set for clinical trials in whiplash-associated disorders (WAD): a study protocol

2018· article· en· W2901016686 on OpenAlexaff
Annick Maujean, Linda Carroll, Michele Curatolo, James M. Elliott, Helge Kasch, David M. Walton, Michele Sterling

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilUniversity of Queensland
KeywordsMedicineWhiplashProtocol (science)Outcome (game theory)Clinical trialPhysical therapyProtocol designPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicinePoison controlMedical emergencyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) as a consequence of a motor vehicle crash are a costly health burden in Western societies. Up to 50% of injured people do not fully recover. There have been numerous clinical trials and cohort studies conducted for WAD with many varied outcome measures used, making data pooling difficult and hindering meta-analysis. These issues could be addressed through the development of a core outcome set (COS) that should be included in all clinical trials for WAD. The purpose of this project is to develop and disseminate a COS for clinical trials in WAD. METHODS/DESIGN: An international Steering Committee was formed to initiate and support the development of this COS. The project will comprise five phases: (1) a comprehensive review of core outcome domains used in clinical trials in WAD, (2) an international Delphi survey including individuals with WAD, health care providers, clinical researchers and insurance personnel to define the core outcome domains, (3) a meeting of relevant stakeholders to reach consensus regarding the final core outcome domains, (4) identification and evaluation of instruments used to measure the final core outcome domains, and (5) a consensus meeting to agree on the core outcome measurement instruments to be used. DISCUSSION: The aim of this proposal is to complete a five-stage process to develop a COS for all clinical trials in WAD. An implementation strategy will also be proposed.

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)0.288
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.238
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2880.238
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.009
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0120.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.009

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 head0.926
GPT teacher head0.765
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207