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 OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.786
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.782
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7860.782
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0350.018
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.000
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.013

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