MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391147924 · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4696882

Hierarchy of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Randomized Controlled Trials for Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Meta-Epidemiological Study – Study Protocol

2024· preprint· en· W4391147924 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

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpidemiologyRandomized controlled trialMedicineProtocol (science)Meta-analysisOutcome (game theory)Physical therapyChronic painHierarchyLow back painAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Domain: Methods · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptMetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (narrow)Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Domain: Methods · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.245
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2450.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.010
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.007
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.296 · 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