MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407044623 · doi:10.5853/jos.2024.03923

Non-Inferiority Trials in Stroke Research: What Are They, and How Should We Interpret Them?

2025· review· en· W4407044623 on OpenAlexaff
Linxin Li, Vasileios‐Arsenios Lioutas, Ralph Kwame Akyea, Stefan T. Gerner, Kui Kai Lau, Emily Ramage, Aristeidis H. Katsanos, George Howard, Philip M. Bath

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Stroke · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Randomized clinical trials are important in both clinical and academic stroke communities with increasing numbers of new design concepts emerging. One of the "less traditional" designs that have gained increasing interest in the last decade is non-inferiority trials. Whilst the concept might appear straightforward, the design and interpretation of non-inferiority trials can be challenging. In this review, we will use exemplars from clinical trials in the stroke field to provide an overview of the advantages and limitations of non-inferiority trials and how they should be interpreted in stroke research.

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)0.376
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.586
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3760.586
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.009
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0160.017
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0120.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.280
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.177 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of StrokeSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207