MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021410289 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.3819778

Statistical review of Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial

2020· article· en· W3021410289 on OpenAlexaff
Beatriz Goulão, Darren Dahly, Christina Yap

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer Research
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicinePlaceboSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakDouble blindRandomized controlled trialClinical trialPhysical therapyVirologyInternal medicineAlternative medicineOutbreakPathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following review has been prepared in collaboration with members of the MRC-NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership. The reviewers named above, and other, unnamed discussants of the paper, are all qualified statisticians with experience in clinical trials. Our objective is to provide a rapid review of publications, preprints and protocols from clinical trials of COVID-19 treatments, independent of journal specific review processes. We aim to provide timely, constructive, focused, clear advice aimed at improving both the research outputs under review, as well as future studies. Given our collective expertise (clinical trial statistics) our reviews focus on the designs of the trials and other statistical content (methods, presentation and accuracy of results, inferences). This review reflects the expert opinions of the named authors, and does not imply endorsement by the MRC-NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership, its wider membership, or any other organization. Here we review Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial by Wang et al, which was published in The Lancet, April 29, 2020. Overall, this was a well-conducted, well-reported trial, which was faithful to a pre-registered, openly available study protocol. Our comments on the paper, detailed below, are all minor in nature. The trial ended early, roughly half-way to its planned sample size, once successful infection control efforts in the region made it difficult to recruit new patients. It is perhaps not surprising then that the study did not demonstrate any substantial effects of remdesivir, though the authors correctly noted that the study was too small to rule out potentially important effects. Regardless, it will be important for investigators and decision makers to take data from this study into account as our understanding of COVID-19 treatment grows.

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 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)0.125
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.372
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1250.372
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.011
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.290 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207