[Evaluation of reporting quality of RCT on nephrotoxicity of Tripterygium wilfordii preparations according to CONSORT HARMs statement].
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials(RCT) on nephrotoxicity of Tripterygium wilfordii preparations according to the CONSORT HARMs statement. The report quality of each included study was evaluated according to the CONSORT HARMs statement， and the number of entries that comply with CONSORT HARMs statement was calculated in each study to evaluate the report quality on nephrotoxicity-related adverse reactions of T. wilfordii preparations and summarize the problems in domestic studies on nephrotoxicity-related adverse reactions. A total of 16 RCTs were included， with an average of 7 entries complying with CONSORT HARMs statement per study. The report of the nephrotoxic-associated RCT of T. wilfordii preparations was of poor quality and the most non-repeating entries included the following ones： using validated tools to report adverse effects， standards for coding of the adverse reactions， describing how and when to collect data on adverse reactions in Method， describing how adverse reactions are attributed to T. wilfordii， clearly stating who has reported the adverse reactions， describing the analysis method of adverse reactions， describing the method of collecting recurrent adverse reaction data， describing any subgroup analysis and exploratory analysis associated with the hazard. We suggest that the studies on adverse reactions of traditional Chinese medicine should strictly report the entries according to the CONSORT HARMs statement， and take the characteristics of traditional Chinese medicine into account to report the details of the Chinese medicine like compositions， dose， taking time， combined medication and the dialectical typology of research objects.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it