The importance of real-life research in respiratory medicine: manifesto of the Respiratory Effectiveness Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are universally considered as the gold standard for evaluating the efficacy of treatments. Their main strength is that, through randomisation, they avoid any major imbalance between compared groups: therefore, observed outcome differences between groups at the end of the trial are most likely related to treatment effects. Since they are inherently prospective by design, they also permit stability throughout the study to ensure that all conditions remain optimal to test the hypothesis of interest. These include high-quality follow-up, reinforced adherence, etc . Consequently, these studies can reach the highest level of internal validity, provided that all quality standards are followed, such as those defined by CONSORT guidelines [1]. This document has been Endorsed by the International Primary Care Respiratory Group and the World Allergy Organization. The authors wish to thank the Respiratory Effectiveness Group Team (Michael Walker, CEO and Supporter Liaison, Naomi Launders, Senior Scientific Researcher and Sarah Lucas, Researcher) and Oversight Committee (Keith Allan, Trevor Lambert and Nick May).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.045 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads 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".