MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407406196 · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2024-018087

Extending a parallel cluster randomised trial into a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial: implications for interpretation

2025· article· en· W4407406196 on OpenAlexaff
Karla Hemming, Monica Taljaard

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Global Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster randomised controlled trialCluster (spacecraft)Randomized controlled trialInterpretation (philosophy)Wedge (geometry)MedicinePhysical therapyComputer scienceInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The PACK trial 1 was a parallel-arm cluster randomised trial, assigning 48 clinics to the intervention arm (a training programme supporting improved management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) or control and measuring outcomes, specifically changes in treatment and spirometry ordering, in 6666 participants. Outcomes were measured during a baseline period and then again after 12 months.

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)0.501
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.816
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5010.816
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.017
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0090.005
Research integrity0.0120.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.442
GPT teacher head0.593
Teacher spread0.151 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Global HealthSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207