MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003402209 · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30790-9

International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials: recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium

2020· review· en· W3003402209 on OpenAlexafffund
Corneel Coens, Madeline Pe, Amylou C. Dueck, Jeff A. Sloan, Ethan Basch, Melanie Calvert, Alicyn Campbell, Charles S. Cleeland, Kim Cocks, Laurence Collette, Nancy Devlin, Lien Dorme, Hans‐Henning Flechtner, Carolyn Gotay, Ingolf Griebsch, Mogens Grøenvold, Madeleine King, Paul G. Kluetz, Michael Koller, Daniel C. Malone, Francesca Martinelli, Sandra A. Mitchell, Jammbe Musoro, Daniel O’Connor, Kathy Oliver, Elisabeth Piault‐Louis, Martine Piccart, Chantal Quinten, Jaap C. Reijneveld, Christoph Schürmann, Ashley Wilder Smith, Katherine M Soltys, Martin Taphoorn, Galina Velikova, Andrew Bottomley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Oncology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersHealth CanadaGenentechNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of CancerU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchBoehringer Ingelheim
KeywordsTerminologyMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Missing dataAlternative medicineRandomized controlled trialQuality (philosophy)MEDLINEClinical trialManagement scienceMedical physicsFamily medicineMedical educationComputer scienceNursingPolitical sciencePathologyEngineering

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.076
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0760.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.736
GPT teacher head0.602
Teacher spread0.134 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations306
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet OncologySame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207