MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2901586580 · doi:10.1136/bmj.k4753

Mesh scandal: lessons from Wall Street ignored

2018· letter· en· W2901586580 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdvertisingProduct (mathematics)Tipping point (physics)Point (geometry)BusinessPolitical scienceLaw and economicsSociologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mesh scandal is all too familiar.1 It joins a growing list of scandals where commercial conflicts of interest (COIs) and effective marketing of a defective product have led to serious injury and loss of life. Against the backdrop of Avandia, Vioxx, Praxil, the opioid crisis, and now the mesh scandal, one wonders what kind of tipping point is needed to prevent a …

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0470.043
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.009

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 head0.529
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.051 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ→Same topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare→French-language works237,207→