MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081037838 · doi:10.1136/bmj.m3260

Covid-19: Should doctors recommend treatments and vaccines when full data are not publicly available?

2020· article· en· W3081037838 on OpenAlexaff
Raymond M. Johnson, Peter Doshi, David Healy

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Transparency (behavior)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)ImperfectMedicineData scienceComputer scienceVirologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)World Wide WebComputer securityPathologyPhilosophyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With knowledge of covid-19 less than a year old, treatment remains fraught with uncertainty. Preprint data and adaptive clinical trials are imperfect but can guide active decision making in life-or-death situations, says <b>Raymond M Johnson</b>. But <b>Peter Doshi</b> and <b>David Healy</b> argue that doctors and professional societies should state that, without complete data transparency, they will not endorse covid-19 products as being based on science

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.879
GPT teacher head0.603
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207