MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2923388716 · doi:10.1186/s40814-019-0423-8

A guide to the reporting of protocols of pilot and feasibility trials

2019· editorial· en· W2923388716 on OpenAlex
Lehana Thabane, Gillian Lancaster

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

VenuePilot and Feasibility Studies · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersKeele UniversityUniversity of OxfordNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchQueen Mary University of London
KeywordsProtocol (science)Clinical trialConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsGuidelineTransparency (behavior)Pilot trialMedical physicsMedicineComputer scienceAlternative medicineRandomized controlled trialSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Publishing protocols of trials including protocols of pilot and feasibility trials—designed to inform the designs of main trials—has been advocated as an important strategy towards improving transparency in the conduct and reporting of main trials and pilot/feasibility trials. This editorial aims to provide some general guidance on how to report protocols of pilot and feasibility trials, drawing upon two available resources—the CONSORT extension to pilot trials and the SPIRIT guideline for main trials. We describe how these might be adapted for the reporting of protocol manuscripts of pilot and feasibility trials for submission in Pilot and Feasibility Studies journal.

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)0.505
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.827
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5050.827
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.929
GPT teacher head0.662
Teacher spread0.266 · 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