MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3099674185 · doi:10.1002/med.21749

Optimizing clinical research procedures in public health emergencies

2020· review· en· W3099674185 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

VenueMedicinal Research Reviews · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthPandemicClinical trialMedicineHealth careBridge (graph theory)DiseaseCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Political scienceNursingInfectious disease (medical specialty)Pathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public Health Emergencies of International Concern, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, have a devastating impact on an individual and societal level, and there is an urgent need to learn, understand and bridge the therapeutic gap at a time of extreme stress on the patient, health care systems and staff. Well-designed, controlled clinical trials play a crucial role in the discovery of novel diagnostic and management strategies; however, these catastrophic circumstances pose unique challenges in initiating research studies at institutional, national, and international levels, highlighting the importance of a coordinated, collaborative approach. This review discusses key elements necessary to consider for developing clinical trials within a Public Health Emergency setting.

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)0.213
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.590
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2130.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.010

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 head0.937
GPT teacher head0.761
Teacher spread0.177 · 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