MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

N-of-1 Trials: Individualized Medication Effectiveness Tests

2013· article· en· W4129195 on OpenAlexaff
Sunita Vohra, Salima Punja

Bibliographic record

VenueThe AMA Journal of Ethic · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence-based management of chronic diseases presents a unique set of challenges. Results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), often considered the "gold standard" of research evidence, are often not well suited to the realities of clinical practice given patient heterogeneity, comorbidities, and the use of multiple concurrent therapies. In fact, RCTs may exclude the majority of patients seen in routine clinical practice In addition, evidence is lacking on the long-term effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and additive effectiveness of many therapies for chronic conditions. This lack of relevant evidence can limit a clinician's ability to make evidence-based decisions.

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)0.161
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.389
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1610.389
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.014
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.012
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.002

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.306 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AMA Journal of EthicSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207