MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175892556 · doi:10.1155/2021/6634134

Methodological Considerations in N-of-1 Trials of Traditional Chinese Medicine

2021· review· en· W3175892556 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Haiyin Huang, Jiaqi An, Lizhi Lu, Wang Ming-li, Huijia Chen, Xinlin Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaMcMaster University
KeywordsTraditional Chinese medicineQuality (philosophy)Clinical trialAlternative medicineResearch designMedicinePsychologyAffect (linguistics)Management scienceClinical study designStatistical analysisTraditional medicineEpistemologyMathematicsStatisticsEngineeringInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More and more scholars choose N-of-1 trials for TCM clinical research. However, the quality of the experimental designs was uneven. Accumulating more than eight years of experience in exploring the N-of-1 trials of TCM, the authors and their team searched the related literature in main Chinese and English databases, referenced to relevant Chinese and international guidelines. The design, implementation, and data analysis of N-of-1 trials of TCM are still in in-depth exploration and practice. "Carryover effect" may affect the design and quality of the trials. Individualized treatment should be guided by the classic theories of TCM. It is expected to formulate reasonable observation periods and pairs and closely integrate individual and group statistical analysis.

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 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)0.665
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.771
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6650.771
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.009
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0110.005
Research integrity0.0090.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.988
GPT teacher head0.710
Teacher spread0.278 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-based Complementary and Alternative MedicineSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207