MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994528036 · doi:10.1136/bmj.h1116

Accessibility of trial reports for drugs stalling in development: a systematic assessment of registered trials

2015· article· en· W1994528036 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Hakala, Jonathan Kimmelman, Benjamin Gregory Carlisle, G. H. Freeman, Dean Fergusson

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa HospitalMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialHazard ratioLicensureDiseaseConfidence intervalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the proportion of trials for unsuccessfully licensed drugs that are not published. DESIGN: A systematic assessment of the availability of published research reports for publicly registered trials testing drugs stalling in clinical development ("stalled drugs") and drugs receiving regulatory licensure in the same time period ("licensed drugs"). DATA SOURCES: Searches of clinicaltrials.gov, Google Scholar, PubMed, Embase, and electronic query of contacts in registries to identify trials and assess publication status. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The cohort of licensed drugs consisted of all disease modifying drugs in cancer, cardiovascular disease, or neurological disorders that received Food and Drug Administration licensure during 2005 to 2009 inclusive. The cohort of stalled drugs included unlicensed drugs in the same disease areas that had at least one completed phase III trial before 2009 and no evidence of any clinical trial activity after 31 December 2009. Inclusion criteria for registered trials advanced into publication searching were an intervention tested in a disease modifying, phase II, III, or IV trial registered on clinicaltrials.gov, with enrolment of at least one patient, that reported primary outcome collection end date between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2008. RESULTS: The unadjusted publication proportion for registered trials of licensed drugs was 75% (72/96) versus 37% (30/81) for stalled drugs. The adjusted hazard ratio for publication was 2.7 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 4.3) in favour of licensed drug trials. Higher publication rates for licensed drug trials were observed regardless of disease type, sponsorship, trial phase, and geography. The rate of non-publication of stalled drug trials was significantly higher for studies that did not complete enrolment compared with licensed drug trials. A total of 20,135 patients participated in trials of stalled drugs that were never published. CONCLUSIONS: Much of the information collected in unsuccessful drug trials is inaccessible to the broader research and practice communities. These findings provide an evidence base and rationale for policy reforms aimed at promoting transparency, ethics, and accountability in clinical research.

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)0.127
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.270
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1270.270
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.847
GPT teacher head0.700
Teacher spread0.148 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations29
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207