Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence-based medicine (EBM) calls on clinicians to incorporate the 'best available evidence' into clinical decision-making. For decisions regarding treatment, the best evidence is that which determines the causal effect of treatments on the clinical outcomes of interest. Unfortunately, research often provides evidence where associations are not due to cause-and-effect, but rather due to non-causal reasons. These non-causal associations may provide valid evidence for diagnosis or prognosis, but biased evidence for treatment effects. Causal inference aims to determine when we can infer that associations are or are not due to causal effects. Since recommending treatments that do not have beneficial causal effects will not improve health, causal inference can advance the practice of EBM. The purpose of this article is to familiarise clinicians with some of the concepts and terminology that are being used in the field of causal inference, including graphical diagrams known as 'causal directed acyclic graphs'. In order to demonstrate some of the links between causal inference methods and clinical treatment decision-making, we use a clinical vignette of assessing treatments to lower cardiovascular risk. As the field of causal inference advances, clinicians familiar with the methods and terminology will be able to improve their adherence to the principles of EBM by distinguishing causal effects of treatment from results due to non-causal associations that may be a source of bias.
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.
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 it