MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

GRADE Guidelines: 29. Rating the certainty in time-to-event outcomes—Study limitations due to censoring of participants with missing data in intervention studies

2020· article· en· W3090620836 on OpenAlexaff
Marius Goldkuhle, Ralf Bender, Elie A. Akl, Elvira C van Dalen, Sarah J Nevitt, Reem A. Mustafa, Gordon Guyatt, Marialena Trivella, Benjamin Djulbegović, Holger J. Schünemann, Michela Cinquini, Nina Kreuzberger, Nicole Skoetz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsCochraneMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensoring (clinical trials)Missing dataMedicineSurvival analysisProportional hazards modelStatisticsMathematics

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 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)0.104
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.448
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1040.448
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.023
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0160.007
Research integrity0.0280.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.039

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 head0.921
GPT teacher head0.687
Teacher spread0.233 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical EpidemiologySame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207