MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022626078 · doi:10.1007/s00784-002-0188-x

The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials

2003· article· en· W3022626078 on OpenAlexaff
David Moher, Kenneth F. Schulz, Douglas G. Altman

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Oral Investigations · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsThomson Reuters (Canada)University of Ottawa
FundersAbbott Laboratories
KeywordsConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsChecklistRandomized controlled trialStatement (logic)Transparency (behavior)Quality (philosophy)Medical educationComputer scienceMedicinePsychologyFamily medicineSurgery

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Reporting · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Reporting · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.508
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.784
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5080.784
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0100.012
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0260.048
Bibliometrics0.0190.030
Science and technology studies0.0060.014
Scholarly communication0.0160.008
Open science0.0170.008
Research integrity0.0200.037
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.008

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 head0.933
GPT teacher head0.660
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
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

Citations266
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueClinical Oral InvestigationsSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207