Evaluating Patient-Centered Outcomes in the Randomized Controlled Trial and Beyond: Informing the Future with Lessons from the Past
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the era of molecular oncology, patients still define a useful therapy as one that allows them to live longer and helps them to live better. Although patient outcomes have clearly improved as a result of randomized controlled trials (RCT), it is critical that contemporary trials retain the perspective of these fundamental patient-centered outcomes. Trends in study design, results, and interpretation of oncology RCTs from the past provide a useful framework in which to consider how the research community may approach trial design in the future. Although the RCT remains the standard for establishing efficacy, this article also considers how population-based outcome studies can provide insight into effectiveness of new therapies and explores how the results of RCTs translate into benefit in the general population.
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 | 0.253 | 0.355 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".