MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387218385 · doi:10.1136/bmjonc-2023-000163

Globalisation of clinical trials in oncology: a double-edged sword?

2023· editorial· en· W4387218385 on OpenAlexaff
Kristina Jenei, Fábio Ynoe de Moraes, Bishal Gyawali

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Oncology · 2023
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSWORDClinical trialMedicineOncologyInternal medicineClinical OncologyBreast cancerGlobalizationMedical physicsCancerPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this issue of BMJ Oncology , Payedimarri et al provide insights into the global distribution of industry sponsored clinical trials for breast, lung and colon cancer.[1][1] Of the 4177 trials conducted up until June 2018, most (77.9%) clinical trials were conducted in high-income countries (HICs

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)0.277
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.827
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2770.827
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0180.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.889
GPT teacher head0.797
Teacher spread0.093 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OncologySame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207