Evaluation of eligibility and recruitment in breast cancer clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives of the study were to measure recruitment rates in clinical trials and to identify patients, physicians or trials characteristics associated with higher recruitment rates. Among patients who had a clinical trial available for their cancer, 83.5% (345/413) met the eligibility criteria to at least one clinical trial. At least one trial was proposed to 33.1% (113/341) of the eligible patients and 19.7% (68/345) were recruited. Overall recruitment was 16.5% (68/413). In multivariate analyses, trial proposal and enrollment were lower for elderly patients and higher in high cancer stages. Trials from pharmaceutical industry had higher recruitment rates and trials testing hormonal therapy enrolled more patients. Breast cancer patients' accrual to a clinical trial could be improved by trying to systematically identify all eligible patients and propose a trial to those eligible and to whom the treatment is planned to be equivalent to the standard arm of the trial.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.735 | 0.858 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".