MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249140248 · doi:10.7326/acpjc-2005-143-3-a08

How should clinicians interpret results reflecting the effect of an intervention on composite endpoints: Should I dump this lump?

2005· article· en· W4249140248 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueACP Journal Club · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntervention (counseling)Composite numberRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyFamily medicineMedical physicsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNursingSurgeryComposite material

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)0.305
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.720
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3050.720
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.005
Bibliometrics0.0130.009
Science and technology studies0.0050.017
Scholarly communication0.0160.023
Open science0.0070.008
Research integrity0.0100.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.378 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations24
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueACP Journal ClubSame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207