MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392470537 · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101284

Adjudication of a primary trial outcome: Results of a calibration exercise and protocol for a large international trial

2024· article· en· W4392470537 on OpenAlexafffund
Adam M. Deane, Joanna C. Dionne, François Lauzier, John C. Marshall, Yaseen M. Arabi, M. Elizabeth Wilcox, Marlies Ostermann, Abdulrahman Al‐Fares, Diane Heels‐Ansdell, Nicole Zytaruk, Lehana Thabane, Simon Finfer

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Clinical Trials Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNosocomial Infections in ICU
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversité LavalUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMinistry of National Guard Health AffairsMedical Research CouncilNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMcMaster University
KeywordsAdjudicationMedicineStress ulcerClinical trialPlaceboProtocol (science)SpecialtyUpper gastrointestinal bleedingClinical endpointPhysical therapyInternal medicineFamily medicineAlternative medicinePathologyEndoscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Ascertainment of the severity of the primary outcome of upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is integral to stress ulcer prophylaxis trials. This protocol outlines the adjudication process for GI bleeding events in an international trial comparing pantoprazole to placebo in critically ill patients (REVISE: Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions). The primary objective of the adjudication process is to assess episodes submitted by participating sites to determine which fulfil the definition of the primary efficacy outcome of clinically important upper GI bleeding. Secondary objectives are to categorize the bleeding severity if deemed not clinically important, and adjudicate the bleeding site, timing, investigations, and treatments. Methods: Research coordinators follow patients daily for any suspected clinically important upper GI bleeding, and submit case report forms, doctors' and nurses' notes, laboratory, imaging, and procedural reports to the methods center. An international central adjudication committee reflecting diverse specialty backgrounds conducted an initial calibration exercise to delineate the scope of the adjudication process, review components of the definition, and agree on how each criterion will be considered fulfilled. Henceforth, bleeding events will be stratified by study drug, and randomly assigned to adjudicator pairs (blinded to treatment allocation, and study center). Results: Crude agreement, chance-corrected agreement, or chance-independent agreement if data have a skewed distribution will be calculated. Conclusions: Focusing on consistency and accuracy, central independent blinded duplicate adjudication of suspected clinically important upper GI bleeding events will determine which events fulfil the definition of the primary efficacy outcome for this stress ulcer prophylaxis trial. Registration: NCT03374800 (REVISE: Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions).

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)0.487
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.512
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4870.512
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0130.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.022

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 head0.585
GPT teacher head0.588
Teacher spread0.004 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Clinical Trials CommunicationsSame topicNosocomial Infections in ICUFrench-language works237,207