CONSORT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is comment on: Hopewell S, et al. CONSORT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials. BMJ. 2025 Apr 14;389:e081124. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40228832 The CONSORT (2025) statement [1] writes about blinding as follows: “Unblinded outcome assessors may differentially assess subjective outcomes, and unblinded data analysts may introduce bias through the choice of analytical strategies, such as the selection of favourable time points or outcomes and by decisions to remove patients from the analyses. These biases have been well documented,” p.27 in [1]. One of the references to this statement, ref. no. 328, is to the trial by Karlowski, Chalmers et al. (1975) [2]. In the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, Thomas Karlowski, Thomas Chalmers et al. observed that 6 g/day vitamin C significantly shortened the duration of colds, yet they concluded “that the effects demonstrated might be explained equally well by a break in the double blind.” The Karlowski (1975) trial has been widely used as evidence for the existence of the placebo effect, and also as evidence that the observed effects of vitamin C on the common cold are explained by the placebo effect [3]. However, it was shown already in 1996 that the placebo-effect interpretation of Karlowski, Chalmers, et al. was not valid [4-6].
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it