Clinical trial opportunities in hemostasis and thrombosis: NHBLI State‐of‐the‐science symposium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical trials in hemostasis and thrombosis (HT) are needed to guide medical practice and future research. Providing public support for trials that could have the greatest impact on clinical care has been a major challenge. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) convened a State-of-the-Science meeting in Bethesda on September 14th and 15th, 2009 to identify Phase II and III clinical trials in HT that could have critical impact on healthcare. An oversight committee composed of representatives of the NHLBI and three experienced extramural investigators chose chairs of subcommittees representing six broad areas of investigation in adult and pediatric HT. Chairs were charged with identifying important, feasible proposals. Nineteen trial concepts were presented at this public meeting, followed by open commentary from members of an independent external panel chosen to evaluate the trials and from symposium participants from the wider scientific community. Descriptions of two important clinical trial concepts from each of the six subcommittees are provided in the Supporting Information. Phase II-III clinical trials that could have high impact include studies for treatment of venous thromboembolism (TE) in children and in adults, the potential utility of statins in prophylaxis of TE, prophylaxis of adults with severe hemophilia, management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and of primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). The external panel also provided recommendations concerning infrastructure and approach that could improve the conduct of studies including: development of core organizations with expertise in design of clinical trials, biostatistics, and contract development; funding based on output and milestones; and enhanced investment in coordinating centers.
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 | 0.151 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.012 |
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".