MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230337229 · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2017.12.048

2017 Cardiovascular and Stroke Endpoint Definitions for Clinical Trials

2018· review· en· W4230337229 on OpenAlexaff
Karen A. Hicks, Kenneth W. Mahaffey, Roxana Mehran, Steven E. Nissen, Stephen D. Wiviott, Billy Dunn, Scott D. Solomon, John R. Marler, John R. Teerlink, Andrew Farb, David A. Morrow, Shari Targum, Cathy A. Sila, Mary Thanh Hai, Michael R. Jaff, Hylton V. Joffe, Donald E. Cutlip, Akshay S. Desai, Eldrin F. Lewis, C. Michael Gibson, Martin Landray, A. Michael Lincoff, Christopher J. White, Steven S. Brooks, Kenneth Rosenfield, Michaël Domanski, Alexandra J. Lansky, John J.V. McMurray, James E. Tcheng, Steven R. Steinhubl, Paul Burton, Laura Mauri, Christopher M. O’Connor, Marc A. Pfeffer, Hung Hung, Norman Stockbridge, Bernard Chaitman, Robert J. Temple, Heather D. Fitter, Kachikwu Illoh, Kenneth J. Cavanaugh, Benjamin M. Scirica, Ilan Irony, Rachel E. Brown Kichline, Jonathan G. Levine, Anna Park, Leonard Sacks, Ana Szarfman, Ellis F. Unger, Lori Ann Wachter, Bram Zuckerman, Yale Mitchel, Douglas Peddicord, Thomas Shook, Bron Kisler, Charles L. Jaffe, Rhonda Bartley, David L. DeMets, MariJo Mencini, Cheri Janning, Steve Bai, John Lawrence, Ralph B. D’Agostino, Stuart Pocock

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Cardiology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialFood and drug administrationData collectionInterpretabilityStroke (engine)Alternative medicineClinical study designClinical researchAggregate dataResearch designIntensive care medicineMedical physicsRisk analysis (engineering)Internal medicinePathologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This publication describes uniform definitions for cardiovascular and stroke outcomes developed by the Standardized Data Collection for Cardiovascular Trials Initiative and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA established the Standardized Data Collection for Cardiovascular Trials Initiative in 2009 to simplify the design and conduct of clinical trials intended to support marketing applications. The writing committee recognizes that these definitions may be used in other types of clinical trials and clinical care processes where appropriate. Use of these definitions at the FDA has enhanced the ability to aggregate data within and across medical product development programs, conduct meta-analyses to evaluate cardiovascular safety, integrate data from multiple trials, and compare effectiveness of drugs and devices. Further study is needed to determine whether prospective data collection using these common definitions improves the design, conduct, and interpretability of the results of clinical trials.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.011
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.765
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.208 · 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.

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

Citations322
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of CardiologySame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207