MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225661123 · doi:10.1016/j.medj.2022.03.002

Completeness of clinical evidence citation in trial protocols: A cross-sectional analysis

2022· article· no· W4225661123 on OpenAlexafffund
Jacky Sheng, Emma Feldhake, Deborah A. Zarin, Jonathan Kimmelman

Bibliographic record

VenueMed · 2022
Typearticle
Languageno
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGreenwall Foundation
KeywordsClinical trialProtocol (science)MedicineAlternative medicineConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsMEDLINESystematic reviewMedical physicsFamily medicinePathologyPolitical science

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)0.508
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.848
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5080.848
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.008
Bibliometrics0.0130.024
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.013
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.924
GPT teacher head0.755
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designObservational
DomainReporting
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueMedSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207