MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403401587 · doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03273-3

How to make cardiology clinical trials more inclusive

2024· review· en· W4403401587 on OpenAlexaff
Faı̈ez Zannad, Otávio Berwanger, Stefano Corda, Martín Cowie, Habib Gamra, C. Michael Gibson, Alexandra Gonçalves, Thomas Hucko, Kamlesh Khunti, Maciej Kostrubiec, Bettina J. Kraus, Cecilia Linde, Thomas F. Lüscher, Marion Mafham, Richard Mindham, Rebecca Ortega, Eva Prescott, Lehana Thabane, Clyde W. Yancy, André Ziegler, Harriette G.C. Van Spall

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialMedicineInternal medicineCardiologyMEDLINEIntensive care medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.127
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.219
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1270.219
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.005
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0130.018
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0120.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.692
GPT teacher head0.646
Teacher spread0.046 · 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
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations28
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNature MedicineSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207