MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022623176 · doi:10.2147/clep.s242097

<p>Synthetic and External Controls in Clinical Trials – A Primer for Researchers</p>

2020· review· en· W3022623176 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Epidemiology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCritical appraisalControl (management)Set (abstract data type)Key (lock)Computational biologyComputer scienceData scienceAlternative medicineBiologyPathologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been a rapid expansion in the use of non-randomized evidence in the regulatory approval of treatments globally. An emerging set of methodologies have been utilized to provide greater insight into external control data used for these purposes, collectively known as synthetic control methods. Through this paper, we provide the reader with a set of key questions to help assess the quality of literature publications utilizing synthetic control methodologies. Common challenges and real-life examples of synthetic controls are provided throughout, alongside a critical appraisal framework with which to assess future publications.

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 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)0.477
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.989
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4770.989
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0460.008
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.949
GPT teacher head0.758
Teacher spread0.192 · 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