What constitutes a "clinical trial"?: A survey of oncology professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: What constitutes a "clinical trial" is inconsistently defined in the medical literature. With an initiative by Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) to report institutional clinical trials activity across the province of Ontario, Canada, we sought to investigate the variability in the interpretation of the term by local oncology professionals. METHODS: A survey amongst the physicians and nurses at the Juravinski Cancer Centre at Hamilton Health Sciences, Ontario was conducted. The survey included 12 summaries of local clinical research studies, and respondents were asked which they believed represented a clinical trial. Subsequently, they were asked which of the same 12 studies they believed should be labeled as clinical trials when considering separate definitions provided by CCO and by the Ontario Cancer Research Network (OCRN). RESULTS: A total of 66 (54%) of 123 surveys were completed; 32/46 (70%) by physicians, 21/59 (36%) by primary care nurses, and 13/18 (72%) by clinical trial nurses. Without a standardized definition, all studies, 12/12, were considered to be clinical trials by at least 50% of respondents. When provided with the CCO definition only 6/12 studies were considered to be clinical trials by the majority of respondents, while with the OCRN definition it was 9/12 studies. Studies evaluating natural health products, non-traditional medical interventions, and non-randomized studies with standard interventions consistently ranked the lowest, regardless of the definition used. CONCLUSION: Oncology professionals appear to have a broadly inclusive baseline definition of what constitutes a clinical trial. Establishing rigor and consistency in the definition of a clinical trial is important for any program, institutional or jurisdictional based comparisons of clinical trials activity, especially when used as a quality indicator of patient care.
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 | 0.041 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".