Mandatory Clinical Trial Registration: Rebuilding Public Trust in Medical Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2006, a working group of the World Health Organization recommended the establishment of a mandatory clinical trials registry for all research involving humans. Clinical trials registration prior to subject recruitment is required by many major medical journals, and several national regulators either introduced registration requirements or are considering doing so. While the principle of trial registration has been widely endorsed, including by the pharmaceutical industry, its content and modus operandi has been the subject of debate. Industry has claimed that registration of some of WHO's required registration elements could impact negatively on intellectual property rights and undermine the competitive advantage of pharmaceutical innovators. This chapter discusses first what the WHO clinical trials registration initiative proposes. It then provides an overview of the ethical and public policy reasons behind clinical trials registration. These provide the background from which to analyze the arguments that have been invoked in favour of limiting some aspects of trial registration. Clinical trials registration should not be seen as a potential threat for intellectual property rights over pharmaceutical products. In addition, the interest in gaining a competitive advantage cannot outweigh the public interest in registration of clinical trials. Registration of trials will, however, not be sufficient to solve some of the significant problems associated with industry's control over the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of results. The chapter ends with an endorsement of the need for further regulatory initiatives.
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 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 | 0.088 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".