MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286247398 · doi:10.1080/19466315.2022.2081601

Clinical and Statistical Perspectives on the ICH E9(R1) Estimand Framework Implementation

2022· article· en· W4286247398 on OpenAlexaff
Alexei Ionan, Miya Paterniti, Devan V. Mehrotra, John Scott, Bohdana Ratitch, Sylva H. Collins, Shanti Gomatam, Lei Nie, Kaspar Rufibach, Frank Bretz

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Biopharmaceutical Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsBayer (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAddendumClinical trialPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ICH E9 (R1) Addendum on “Estimands and Sensitivity Analysis in Clinical Trials (Step 4)” was finalized in November 2019 and subsequently implemented by many regulatory agencies, including FDA (May 2021). This article is based on a session organized to cover experience implementing the estimand framework, including its use, impact on drug/biologic development, common challenges and ways to address them, as well as keys to productive interdisciplinary collaboration.

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)0.423
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.512
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4230.512
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.022
Scholarly communication0.0200.013
Open science0.0070.011
Research integrity0.0190.037
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.833
GPT teacher head0.752
Teacher spread0.080 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in Biopharmaceutical ResearchSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207