Clinical trial transparency: many gains but access to evidence for new medicines remains imperfect
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although selective and incomplete publication is widely acknowledged to be a problem, full access to clinical trial data remains illusive. SOURCES OF DATA: Authors' personal files, key documents from Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency and focussed searches of PubMed. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Existing sources of information provide an incomplete overview of scientific research. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: Persistent arguments about commercial confidentiality and the potential difficulties in de-identifying raw data can block important progress. Current industry efforts are voluntary and only partially satisfy the need for complete data. GROWING POINTS: Requirements for trial registration are increasing. Important regulatory changes in particular in Europe have the potential to result in the release of more information. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Documenting the effects of prospective trial registration and requirements for proactive clinical trial publication on healthcare decisions, public health and rational resource allocation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.058 | 0.565 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it