MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965110177 · doi:10.2310/7200.2007.001

How to Improve Accrual to Clinical Trials of Symptom Control 2: Design Issues

2007· article· en· W1965110177 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrew J. Vickers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Society for Integrative Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsAccrualMedicineClinical trialLimitingRandomized controlled trialInclusion (mineral)Inclusion and exclusion criteriaControl (management)Intensive care medicineAlternative medicineSurgeryPsychologyInternal medicineAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The major reason that clinical trials in integrative oncology fail is that inadequate numbers of patients are accrued. One important cause of inadequate accrual is eligibility criteria that are overly restrictive. Investigators should critically examine every single inclusion or exclusion criterion to determine whether possible benefits to the study clearly outweigh harms in terms of reduced accrual. Accrual will also be harmed if the burdens for participation--traveling to appointments, completing questionnaires--are excessive compared with the benefits for patients. In a traditional randomized trial, half of participants do not receive treatment, reducing the benefits expected by any patient. This can be offset by guaranteeing free treatment to patients in the control group after they have completed the study. Patient burden can be reduced by limiting the number of hospital visits and avoiding excessive numbers of questionnaires.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.111
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.354
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1110.354
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.591
GPT teacher head0.676
Teacher spread0.085 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Society for Integrative OncologySame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207