MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252747223 · doi:10.1186/s13063-021-05312-7

Correction to: A novel preference-informed complementary trial (PICT) design for clinical trial research influenced by strong patient preferences

2021· article· en· W4252747223 on OpenAlexaff
Samina Ali, Gareth Hopkin, Naveen Poonai, Lawrence Richer, Maryna Yaskina, Anna Heath, Terry P. Klassen, Chris McCabe

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoChildren’s Health Research InstituteInstitute of Health EconomicsWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlternative medicineMedicinePreferenceClinical trialResearch designRandomized controlled trialMedical physicsFamily medicineSurgeryInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following the publication of the original article [1], we were notified that the Acknowledgements section needs to accommodate additional collaborators. The original article has been corrected.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.505
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.505
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0190.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0900.029

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 head0.929
GPT teacher head0.674
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods · Editorial

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 abstractno

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207