Guidance for protocol content and reporting of factorial randomised trials: explanation and elaboration of the CONSORT 2010 and SPIRIT 2013 extensions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report presents the explanation and elaboration paper for the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) 2010 and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013 extensions for factorial trials. Factorial trials involve randomising participants to more than one intervention, often with the aim of evaluating multiple interventions in one study or assessing whether treatments interact. The CONSORT and SPIRIT statements have been extended to allow for the unique features of the factorial design. Reporting items along with detailed explanations and examples of good practice are provided, as well as a glossary of key terms and an overview of the methodological features of factorial trials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.350 | 0.619 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.142 | 0.071 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".