MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391321963 · doi:10.1177/20597991241227844

All that glitters is not gold: Why randomized controlled trials are bronze standard (at best) in determining best practices for the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder

2024· article· en· W4391321963 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

VenueMethodological Innovations · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGold standard (test)Posttraumatic stressBronzeRandomized controlled trialPsychologyMaterials scienceClinical psychologyMetallurgyMedicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is considered the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions or treatments across fields of physical and psychological medicine. While the RCT is well-placed for issues best addressed with a medical model approach—its origin story, the study and treatment of scurvy, an ideal exemplar—its stature and use must be challenged in cases of experiential phenomena, such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), where there is no one answer, treatment, or approach that suits all persons. Uncontested, its evidentiary superiority threatens to have deleterious effects on determining best practices for the treatment of PTSD.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.705
GPT teacher head0.577
Teacher spread0.127 · 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