MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916159055 · doi:10.1186/s13063-018-3116-3

Introducing the new CONSORT extension for stepped-wedge cluster randomised trials

2019· letter· en· W2916159055 on OpenAlexaff
Karla Hemming, Monica Taljaard, Jeremy Grimshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsCRTSConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsMedicineGuidelineAlternative medicineMedical physicsFamily medicineComputer sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of the stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial (SW-CRT) is on the increase, and although there are still relatively few SW-CRTs currently published its use is bound to show an increase in the near future. An extension of the CONSORT reporting guideline for SW-CRTs has recently been developed. By making reporting guidelines for this innovative design available relatively early in its development, it is possible that the methodological conduct and reporting of future SW-CRTs will not be at the same risk of low-quality of reporting as is the case with many other study designs. We provide a brief overview of this reporting guideline and encourage authors to use it appropriately; and for journal editors to endorse its use.

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)0.577
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.832
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5770.832
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.015
Bibliometrics0.0100.013
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0150.015
Open science0.0080.013
Research integrity0.0240.050
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.010

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 head0.860
GPT teacher head0.577
Teacher spread0.283 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreMethods

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

Citations100
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207