Bibliographic record
Abstract
Culture in the biomedical research arena plays an enormous role in both the lack of productivity and the focus on common conditions as well. Rare disease drug discovery resides in this difficult morass, and is then only further complicated by small cohorts that make it difficult to characterise the disease and create adequate trial size. Heterogeneity in disease pathophysiology plagues rare conditions, although it affects common ones as well. Regulatory agencies such as United States Food and Drug Administration, Health Canada and the European Medicines Agency examine the safety and efficacy of potential therapies. Even if a validated biomarker is available, it is difficult to get a large enough pool of people for studies to have high enough &s;power&s;. Stratified medicine challenges the traditional drug development paradigm because it creates smaller cohorts and reduces the power of studies. Potential therapies often fail during the clinical trial process. This is part of what adds to the enormous costs of drug development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.030 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".