MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6902060615 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.23632746

Additional file 9 of Development of consensus-driven SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for early phase dose-finding trials: the DEFINE study

2023· article· en· W6902060615 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorical variableBar (unit)DosingBar chartTable (database)DiagramCalibration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additional file 9. Perception of proposed items and sensitivity analysis: Tables A9-1 – A9-3, Figures A9-1 – A9-13. Table A9-1. Summary of categorical and numerical ratings at Round One and 2. Figure A9-1. Percentage of participants changing their numerical scores at Round Two. Figure A9-2. Percentage of participants changing their categorical scores at Round Two. Table A9-2. Number of participants changing their ratings between Round One and Round Two. Table A9-3. Frequency and percentage of perfect agreement. Figure A9-3. Stacked bar plots of candidate item [17 SPIRIT-DEFINE] “Planned dosing regimens presented as a diagram or table, where applicable” by stakeholders. Figure A9-4. Stacked bar plots of candidate item [18 CONSORT-DEFINE] “Planned and delivered dosing regimens presented as a diagram or table, where applicable” by stakeholders. Figure A9-5. Stacked bar plots of candidate item [48 SPIRIT-DEFINE] “Statistical methods for additional analyses” by stakeholders. Figure A9-6. Stacked bar plots of candidate item [69 CONSORT-DEFINE] “Specify if and when results were reported whilst the trial was still ongoing” by stakeholders. Figure A9-7. Stacked bar plots of candidate item [70 SPIRIT-DEFINE] “Where the full trial protocol or the redacted version, with amendments, can be accessed” by stakeholders. Figure A9-8. Stacked bar plots of candidate item [17 SPIRIT-DEFINE] “Planned dosing regimens presented as a diagram or table, where applicable” by Continent. Figure A9-9. Stacked bar plots of candidate item [18 CONSORT-DEFINE] “Planned and delivered dosing regimens presented as a diagram or table, where applicable” by Continent. Figure A9-10. Stacked bar plots of candidate item [48 SPIRIT-DEFINE] “Statistical methods for additional analyses” by Continent. Figure A9-11. Stacked bar plots of candidate item [69 CONSORT-DEFINE] “Specify if and when results were reported whilst the trial was still ongoing” by Continent. Figure A9-12. Stacked bar plots of candidate item [70 SPIRIT-DEFINE] “Where the full trial protocol or the redacted version, with amendments, can be accessed” by Continent. Figure A9-13. Stacked bar plots of candidate item [5 SPIRIT-DEFINE] “Summary of findings from existing correlative biomarker, correlative and associated studies to support planned biomarker sub-study” by Continent.

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)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.371
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.371
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.8830.184

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 head0.832
GPT teacher head0.602
Teacher spread0.230 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207