MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308003681 · doi:10.54846/jshap/1295

Maximizing value and minimizing waste in clinical trial research in swine: Selecting interventions to build an evidence base

2022· article· en· W4308003681 on OpenAlexafffund
Jan M. Sargeant, Annette M. O’Connor, Terri L. O’Sullivan, Alejandro Ramirez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Swine Health and Production · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Clinical trialBaseline (sea)MedicineReplication (statistics)PlaceboEquivalence (formal languages)Randomized controlled trialPhysical therapyIntensive care medicineComputer scienceAlternative medicineMathematicsSurgeryNursingInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers conduct a trial to compare an intervention of interest to a comparison group. Initially, researchers should determine whether a trial is evaluating superiority, equivalence, or noninferiority. This decision will guide the choice of a placebo versus active comparison group. Interventions, as well as baseline management, should be comprehensively reported to allow replication or clinical application. It is necessary to build a body of evidence across multiple trials to apply evidence-based decision-making. To achieve this, at least one intervention in every trial should be an intervention that has been used in at least one previously published trial.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.091
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.180
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0910.180
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.885
GPT teacher head0.709
Teacher spread0.176 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Swine Health and ProductionSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207