Errata for trial publications are not uncommon, are frequently not trivial, and can be challenging to access: a retrospective review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The research sought to determine the prevalence of errata for drug trial publications that are included in systematic reviews, their potential value to reviews, and their accessibility via standard information retrieval methods. Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective review of included studies from forty systematic reviews of drugs evaluated by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Common Drug Review (CDR) in 2015. For each article that was included in the systematic reviews, we conducted searches for associated errata using the CDR review report, PubMed, and the journal publishers' websites. The severity of errors described in errata was evaluated using a three-category scale: trivial, minor, or major. The accessibility of errata was determined by examining inclusion in bibliographic databases, costs of obtaining errata, time lag between article and erratum publication, and correction of online articles. Results: The 40 systematic reviews included 127 articles in total, for which 26 errata were identified. These errata described 38 errors. When classified by severity, 6 errors were major; 20 errors were minor; and 12 errors were trivial. No one database contained all the errata. On average, errata were published 211 days after the original article (range: 15-1,036 days). All were freely available. Over one-third (9/24) of online articles were uncorrected after errata publication. Conclusion: Errata frequently described non-trivial errors that would either impact the interpretation of data in the article or, in fewer cases, impact the conclusions of the study. As such, it seems useful for reviewers to identify errata associated with included studies. However, publication time lag and inconsistent database indexing impair errata accessibility.
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 | 0.207 | 0.619 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.034 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".