Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical research has become increasingly globalized, but the extent of globalization has not been assessed. To describe the globalization of clinical research, we used all (n = 13,208) multinational trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov to analyzed geographic connections among individual countries. Our findings indicate that 95% (n = 185) of all countries worldwide have participated in multinational clinical research. Growth in the globalization of clinical research peaked in 2009, suggesting that the global infrastructure that supports clinical research might have reached its maximum capacity. Growth in the globalization of clinical research is attributable to increased involvement of non-traditional markets, particularly in South America and Asia. Nevertheless, Europe is the most highly interconnected geographic region (60.64% of global connections), and collectively, Europe, North America, and Asia comprise more than 85% of all global connections. Therefore, while the expansion of clinical trials into non-traditional markets has increased over the last 20 years and connects countries across the globe, traditional markets still dominate multinational clinical research, which appears to have reached a maximum global capacity.
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 | 0.036 | 0.146 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".