MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

An approach to explore for a sweet spot in randomized trials

2019· article· en· W2997338746 on OpenAlexafffund
Donald A. Redelmeier, Robert Tibshirani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research ChairsBrightFocus Foundation
KeywordsHazard ratioConfidence intervalSweet spotRandomized controlled trialMedicineInternal medicineProportional hazards modelRelative riskBiology

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)0.644
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.838
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6440.838
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.011
Bibliometrics0.0140.009
Science and technology studies0.0070.030
Scholarly communication0.0240.044
Open science0.0090.017
Research integrity0.0270.038
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.634
GPT teacher head0.596
Teacher spread0.038 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology→Same topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies→French-language works237,207→