MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387363075 · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3002293

A call to implement preclinical study registration in animal ethics review

2023· article· en· W4387363075 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew S. Jeffers, Aileen MacLellan, Marc T. Avey, Julia M. L. Menon, Janet Sunohara-Neilson, Dean Fergusson, Manoj M. Lalu

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Biology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityCanadian Council on Animal CareUniversity of GuelphOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOttawa Hospital Anesthesia Alternate Funds AssociationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Anesthesiologists' SocietyGovernment of OntarioUniversity of OttawaCanadian Anesthesia Research Foundation
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)BiologyTrial registrationAnimal testingProtocol (science)Institutional review boardPreclinical researchClinical trialResearch ethicsResearch integrityMedical physicsBioinformaticsEngineering ethicsComputer scienceBiotechnologyPathologyMedicineAlternative medicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Protocol registration is required in clinical trials. Registration of animal studies could improve research transparency and reduce redundancy, yet uptake has been minimal. Integrating study registration into institutional approval of animal use protocols is a promising approach to increase uptake.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.710
GPT teacher head0.600
Teacher spread0.110 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS BiologySame topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207