MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Permissibility and necessity in the ethical justification of randomized controlled trials: the four quadrants framework and the case of endovascular thrombectomy trials for acute ischemic stroke

2025· article· en· W4410292541 on OpenAlexafffund
Michel Shamy, Brian Dewar, Vignan Yogendrakumar, Victoria Shepherd, Mark Fedyk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
FundersDepartment of Medicine, Ottawa HospitalCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of OttawaHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Randomized controlled trialIschemic strokeEmergency medicineSurgeryInternal medicineIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.660
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.728
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6600.728
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.006
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0110.129
Scholarly communication0.0220.037
Open science0.0140.018
Research integrity0.0680.061
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.289
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→