MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944062769 · doi:10.1177/1740774519846504

There is still a place for significance testing in clinical trials

2019· editorial· en· W2944062769 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Cook, Dean Fergusson, Ian Ford, Mithat Gönen, Jonathan Kimmelman, Edward L. Korn, Colin B. Begg

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Trials · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityOttawa Hospital
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsSignificance testingClinical trialMedicineInternal medicineStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.089
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.299
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0890.299
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.006
Bibliometrics0.0110.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.014
Scholarly communication0.0180.010
Open science0.0080.004
Research integrity0.0430.064
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.013

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 head0.915
GPT teacher head0.730
Teacher spread0.185 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreEditorial

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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueClinical TrialsSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207