MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161096693 · doi:10.1177/1740774513491337

Data collection in cancer clinical trials: Too much of a good thing?

2013· article· en· W2161096693 on OpenAlexaffabout
Erin O’Leary, Hsien Seow, Jim A. Julian, Mark N. Levine, Gregory R. Pond

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Trials · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsOntario Clinical Oncology GroupMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialMedicineData collectionCancerFamily medicineMedical physicsInternal medicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Substantial staff time and costs are incurred in the collection of data for cancer clinical trials. Anecdotal experience suggests that much of these data are never used in the analysis or reporting of a trial. PURPOSE: To quantify data items collected in cancer clinical trials and calculate what percentage is used in subsequent published manuscripts. METHODS: Cancer clinical trials completed by the Ontario Clinical Oncology Group (OCOG) between 2003 and 2012 and the corresponding primary outcome publication were identified. The number of data items collected on each trial's case report form (CRF) was counted and sorted into 18 categories including eligibility, baseline characteristics, medical history, toxicity, and recurrence. The data items were then counted within the corresponding published manuscripts to determine percent of data used overall and within each section. RESULTS: In all, 8 trials, with 9 corresponding publications, were evaluated. The CRF analysis revealed that the total collected items per subject ranged from 186 to 1035 per trial with a median of 599. Across all the publications, a median of 96 data items (18%) were reported in each manuscript, ranging from 11% to 27% per trial. In 8 of the 18 categories, 4% or less of collected data items were used. LIMITATIONS: The number of trials reviewed is small and were conducted from a single clinical trial coordinating centre. The main outcome of the number of data items used in the published manuscript is a surrogate for trial information considered valuable by investigators. Some data may be deemed important by investigators but not included in manuscripts. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of publications from 8 clinical trials, a small amount of data collected was ultimately used in peer-reviewed journal manuscripts. A large amount of data collected in cancer trials appears to go unused and could be omitted from CRFs, thus simplifying data collection and improving trial efficiency.

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)0.712
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.880
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7120.880
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.006
Bibliometrics0.0220.044
Science and technology studies0.0080.032
Scholarly communication0.0330.032
Open science0.0100.014
Research integrity0.0090.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.006

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 head0.973
GPT teacher head0.803
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations37
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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