MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407101655 · doi:10.1038/s44325-025-00045-x

Author Correction: Consistency of HFrEF treatment effect in underrepresented groups in randomized clinical trials

2025· article· en· W4407101655 on OpenAlexaff
Guillaume Baudry, Luca Monzo, Mark C. Petrie, Nicolas Girerd, Ileana L. Piña, Alexandre Mebazaa, Javed Butler, Leïla Abid, Faı̈ez Zannad, Harriette G.C. Van Spall

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Cardiovascular Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScience, Research, and Medicine
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialConsistency (knowledge bases)MedicineClinical trialPsychologyInternal medicineComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the original Article, a sentence was missing from the abstract. The missing sentence has now been added to the abstract and the original Article has been corrected.

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)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.628
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.628
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0110.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0730.022

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.363 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Cardiovascular HealthSame topicScience, Research, and MedicineFrench-language works237,207