MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7115807102

Considerations For Identifying and Conducting Cluster Trials

2021· dissertation· en· W7115807102 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2021
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCRTSRandomized controlled trialBaseline (sea)Cluster (spacecraft)RandomizationMEDLINECluster randomised controlled trialSystematic review
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The cluster randomized trial design randomly assigns groups of people to different treatment arms. This dissertation aimed to (1) develop machine learning algorithms to identify cluster trials in bibliographic databases, (2) assess reporting of methodological and ethical elements in hemodialysis-related cluster trials, and (3) assess how well two covariate-constrained randomization methods balanced baseline characteristics compared with simple randomization. Methods: In study 1, we developed three machine learning algorithms that classify whether a bibliographic citation is a CRT report or not. We only used the information available in an article citation, including the title, abstract, keywords, and subject headings. In study 2, we conducted a systematic review of CRTs in the hemodialysis setting to review the reporting of key methodological and ethical issues. We reviewed CRTs published in English between 2000 and 2019 and indexed in MEDLINE or EMBASE. In study 3, we assessed how well two covariate-constrained randomization methods balanced baseline characteristics compared with simple randomization. Results: In study 1, we successfully developed high-performance algorithms that identified whether a citation was a CRT. Our algorithms had greater than 97% sensitivity and 77% specificity in identifying CRTs. For study 2, we found suboptimal conduct and reporting of methodological issues of CRTs in the hemodialysis setting and incomplete reporting of key ethical issues. For study 3, where we randomized 72 clusters, constraining the randomization using historical information achieved a better balance on baseline characteristics than simple randomization; however, the magnitude of benefit was modest. Conclusions: This dissertation's results will help researchers quickly identify cluster trials in bibliographic databases (study 1) and inform the design and analyses of future Canadian trials conducted within the hemodialysis setting (study 2 & 3).

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)0.861
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.936
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 score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.8610.936
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.012
Bibliometrics0.0130.014
Science and technology studies0.0060.020
Scholarly communication0.0210.022
Open science0.0120.010
Research integrity0.0150.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.761
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)→Same topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews→French-language works237,207→