MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100839679 · doi:10.1177/1740774512456453

Eligibility criteria in randomized phase II and III adjuvant and neoadjuvant breast cancer trials: Not a significant barrier to enrollment

2012· article· en· W2100839679 on OpenAlexaff
Myriam Filion, Geneviève Forget, Olyvia Brochu, Louise Provencher, Christine Desbiens, Catherine Doyle, Brigitte Poirier, Martin Durocher, Stéphanie Camden, Julie Lemieux

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Trials · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecHôpital du Saint-SacrementUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerClinical trialSubcategoryCancerRandomized controlled trialInformed consentInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial recruitment can be impeded by eligibility criteria being too numerous or too restrictive. PURPOSE: This study's principal objective was to determine whether a specific category of eligibility criteria could be identified as a major barrier to patient enrollment. METHODS: Nine phase II or III clinical trials, opened between June 2004 and July 2008, were selected. A retrospective cohort of women diagnosed with invasive, nonmetastatic breast cancer and potentially eligible for these clinical trials was used. All eligibility criteria were sorted into the following categories: definition of disease, precision, safety, ethical and legal, or administrative. A total of 985 patient-trials were evaluated, defined as the experimental unit since one patient could be eligible to more than one trial. Proportions of cases with 'not met' eligibility criteria were assessed for each category in each trial. RESULTS: Two clinical trials had a 'not met' subcategory criterion of over 20%. 'Pathology' and 'consent' subcategory criteria were 'not met' in 24.2% and 92.7% of cases for the NEOCAN and NCIC CTG MA.27 trials, respectively. NCIC CTG MA.27 had the highest proportion of 'not met' subcategory due to an inclusion criterion requiring participation to two companion studies. National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-38 had a proportion of 18.8% of cases 'not meeting' the receptor status subcategory criterion. All other subcategories of eligibility criteria assessed were 'not met' by less than 15% of patients. Overall, few subcategories had over 10% of ineligible patients. LIMITATIONS: Many eligibility criteria were considered 'nonevaluable' because the information evaluated would have required additional procedures not performed as part of the general practice. CONCLUSION: The subjects from the study population are not precluded from entry in a trial because of stringent eligibility criteria. Eligibility criteria should reflect as much as possible the whole population to whom the treatment will be offered, with the exception of drugs targeting a specific receptor or pathway where only a subpopulation is hypothesized to benefit from the therapy. In the breast cancer clinical trials evaluated for the present study, no criterion precluding recruitment was shared by many or all trials and no specific eligibility criterion was consistently the reason for patients' ineligibility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.465
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.551
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4650.551
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.699
GPT teacher head0.705
Teacher spread0.007 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations23
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TrialsSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207