MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391740032 · doi:10.1016/j.ekir.2024.02.015

Sex Inequities in Clinical Trials and Trial Leadership

2024· editorial· en· W4391740032 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Francis, Adeera Levin

Bibliographic record

VenueKidney International Reports · 2024
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialAlternative medicineSex therapyFamily medicineGerontologyPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite decades of progress, sex inequities in medicine and research remain pervasive. Much work has focused on biases against women in clinical medicine and in sex differences in health outcomes for men and women.1,2 More recently, a spotlight has been shone on the underrepresentation of women in clinical trials.

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)0.496
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.859
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4960.859
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.006
Bibliometrics0.0100.015
Science and technology studies0.0050.011
Scholarly communication0.0210.017
Open science0.0060.013
Research integrity0.0150.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0910.018

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 head0.354
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.167 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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 venueKidney International ReportsSame topicSex and Gender in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207