Establishing Guidelines for Reporting Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, several reviews of clinical trials in preharvestfood safety and production animal medicinehave identified issues with lack of reporting of keymethodological quality features and items necessaryfor interpretation and replication of trial findings. Inhuman medicine, similar issues with the reporting ofclinical trials were identified 10-15 years ago. This ledto the publication of the CONsolidated Standards OfReporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, which consistsof a checklist of 22 items that should be reported whenpublishing a clinical trial, a flow diagram to describeparticipant movement at all stages of a trial, and anexplanation and elaboration document. The CONSORTstatement is endorsed by hundreds of medical journalsand has resulted in improvements in trial reporting.Livestock clinical trials incorporate issues not coveredby CONSORT, including the distinction between animalowners and study subjects, the frequent allocation oftreatments to groups, the conduct in both research andcommercial settings, and the common use of deliberatedisease challenge models.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.721 | 0.801 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.045 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.033 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".