MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409874896 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(25)00770-6

SPIRIT 2025 statement: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials

2025· article· en· W4409874896 on OpenAlexafffund
An‐Wen Chan, Isabelle Boutron, Sally Hopewell, David Moher, Kenneth F. Schulz, Gary S. Collins, R. Tunn, Rakesh Aggarwal, Michael Berkwits, Jesse A. Berlin, Nita Bhandari, Nancy J. Butcher, Marion Campbell, Runcie C.W. Chidebe, Diana Elbourne, Dean Fergusson, Robert Golub, Tammy Hoffmann, John P. A. Ioannidis, Brennan C Kahan, Rachel L Knowles, Sarah E Lamb, Steff Lewis, Elizabeth Loder, Martin Offringa, Philippe Ravaud, Dawn P. Richards, Frank W. Rockhold, David L. Schriger, Nandi Siegfried, Sophie Staniszewska, R. Taylor, Lehana Thabane, David Torgerson, Sunita Vohra, Ian R. White, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonUniversity of AlbertaRobarts Clinical TrialsOttawa HospitalWomen's College Hospital
FundersHealth Technology Assessment ProgrammeJawaharlal Institute Of Postgraduate Medical Education and ResearchUniversity of AberdeenUniversity of GlasgowUniversity of OxfordUniversity College LondonHospital for Sick ChildrenNorthwestern UniversityUniversity of WarwickUniversity of ExeterDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchSouth African Medical Research CouncilUniversity of AlbertaOttawa Hospital Research InstituteMcMaster UniversityMedical Research CouncilLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineBond UniversityUniversity of Miami
KeywordsGuidelineStatement (logic)MedicineMEDLINEFamily medicinePolitical sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.447
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.579
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4470.579
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.015
Bibliometrics0.0150.014
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0170.008
Open science0.0120.009
Research integrity0.0170.033
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.050

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 head0.846
GPT teacher head0.639
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
DomainReporting
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

Citations65
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207