MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391652457 · doi:10.1002/sim.10034

Correction to “Using principal stratification in analysis of clinical trials”

2024· erratum· en· W4391652457 on OpenAlexaff
Ilya Lipkovich, Bohdana Ratitch, Yongming Qu, Xiang Zhang, Mingyang Shan, Craig Mallinckrodt

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2024
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsBayer (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatisticsPrincipal (computer security)Stratification (seeds)Computer scienceEconometricsMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We would like to make a correction to the paper titled “Using principal stratification in analysis of clinical trials” in Statistics in Medicine. In Section 11.2, Equations (14) and (15) for expressions T 3 $$ {T}_3 $$ and T 4 $$ {T}_4 $$ , respectively, have to be corrected as shown in the updated text below.

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 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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.372
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.372
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0090.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0840.073

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 head0.762
GPT teacher head0.700
Teacher spread0.062 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207