MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387807507 · doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-076386

Enhancing quality and impact of early phase dose-finding clinical trial protocols: SPIRIT Dose-finding Extension (SPIRIT-DEFINE) guidance

2023· article· en· W4387807507 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityRobarts Clinical TrialsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNIHR Imperial Biomedical Research CentreNational Heart Foundation of AustraliaCancer Research UK
KeywordsProtocol (science)GuidelineClinical trialMedical physicsMedicineTransparency (behavior)Alternative medicineComputer sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013 provides guidance for clinical trial protocol writing. However, neither the original guidance nor its extensions adequately cover the features of early phase dose-finding trials. The SPIRIT Dose-finding Extension (DEFINE) statement is a new guideline that provides recommendations for essential items that should be provided in the protocols of these trials. It details extensions to the SPIRIT 2013 guidance, incorporating 17 new items and modifying 15 existing items. The purpose of this guideline is to promote transparency, completeness, reproducibility of methods, and interpretation of early phase dose-finding trial protocols. It is envisioned that the resulting improvements in the design and conduct of early phase clinical trials will ultimately reduce research inefficiencies and inconsistencies, driving transformational advances in clinical care.

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.

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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.333
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.333
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.831
GPT teacher head0.712
Teacher spread0.119 · 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