Comparison of Characteristics and Outcomes of Trial Participants and Nonparticipants: Example of Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network 0201 Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Controversy surrounds the question of whether clinical trial participants have better outcomes than comparable patients who are not treated on a trial. We explored this question using a recent large, randomized, multicenter study comparing peripheral blood (PB) with bone marrow transplantation from unrelated donors, conducted by the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN). We compared characteristics and outcomes of study participants (n = 494) and nonparticipants (n = 1384) who appeared eligible and received similar treatment without enrolling on the BMT CTN trial at participating centers during the study time period. Data were obtained from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Outcomes were compared between the 2 groups using Cox proportional hazards regression models. No significant differences in age, sex, disease distribution, race/ethnicity, HLA matching, comorbidities, and interval from diagnosis to hematopoietic cell transplantation were seen between the participants and nonparticipants. Nonparticipants were more likely to have lower performance status, lower risk disease, and older donors, and to receive myeloablative conditioning and antithymocyte globulin. Nonparticipants were also more likely to receive PB grafts, the intervention tested in the trial (66% versus 50%, P < .001). Overall survival, transplantation-related mortality, and incidences of acute or chronic graft-versus-host disease were comparable between the 2 groups though relapse was higher (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 1.46; P = .028) in nonparticipants. Despite differences in certain baseline characteristics, survival was comparable between study participants and nonparticipants. The results of the BMT CTN trial appear generalizable to the population of trial-eligible patients.
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 | 0.071 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".