MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399493595 · doi:10.2427/5718

CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

2010· article· en· W4399493595 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth F. Schulz, Douglas C. Altman, David Moher

Bibliographic record

VenueItalian Journal of Public Health · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsStatement (logic)Group (periodic table)Randomized controlled trialMedicineFamily medicineInternal medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

he CONSORT statement is used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials. Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the latest version, CONSORT 2010, which updates the reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience. To encourage dissemination of the CONSORT 2010 Statement, this article is freely accessible on www.ijph.it.

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)0.315
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.532
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3150.532
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.013
Bibliometrics0.0140.016
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0080.005
Research integrity0.0080.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.015

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 head0.659
GPT teacher head0.601
Teacher spread0.058 · 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
DomainReporting
GenreMethods

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

Citations42
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueItalian Journal of Public HealthSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207