MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390262189 · doi:10.1016/j.jns.2023.121412

The evolution of randomized controlled trials in Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4390262189 on OpenAlexaff
Angela T.H. Kwan, Joseph Therriault, Étienne Aumont, Marcel S. Woo, Saman Arfaie, Stijn Servaes, Cécile Tissot, Nesrine Rahmouni, Arthur C. Macedo, Paolo Vitali, Jean‐Paul Soucy, Tharick A. Pascoal, Serge Gauthier, Pedro Rosa‐Neto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Neurological Sciences · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalMcGill UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialDiseaseAlzheimer's diseaseMedicineSystematic reviewMEDLINEBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.134
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.278
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1340.278
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0330.038
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designMeta-analysis
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Neurological Sciences→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→