Evaluation of factors associated with recruitment in hematological clinical trials: A retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6567 Background: Recruitment of patients in cancer clinical trials has been reported to be between 3%–5%. Very few data come from Canada. Methods: The objective was to measure the recruitment and its associated characteristics in hematology clinical trials for malignant diseases. This was a retrospective cohort study using charts review in a tertiary hematology centre in Québec City, Canada. Clinical trials opened between 2002 and 2008 were selected. For each protocol, main criteria were used to define the population under study (e.g., stage IV Hodgkin lymphomas first-line). If the patient filled the main criteria, all eligibility criteria (inclusion and exclusion criteria) of the protocol were assessed. Results: Among all charts reviewed, 697 patients were identified in 17 protocols. However, as a patient could be assessed for more than one protocol if applicable, this population reached 1,394 observations. The study population filling the main criteria of a protocol included 195 observations in 17 protocols (186 different patients). Only 9.7% (8.2–11.4) filled all the eligibility criteria and 3.3% (2.5–4.4) were recruited among all charts reviewed (1394 observations). However, theses rates reached 68.2 % (61.2–75.1) and 23.1 % (17.9–29.8), respectively, among patients meeting the main criteria of a protocol (195 observations). Recruitment in the population who filled all eligibility criteria (inclusion and exclusion criteria) was 33.8% (26.7–42.5). Patient's sex, age, comorbidities, doctor's sex, doctor's age and protocol characteristics were not associated with recruitment in the population filling the main criteria, but having a note in the chart about the protocol appears to be associated with higher recruitment (p < 0.0001). The most common reasons for not being recruited were as follow (could have more than one reason): 40.7% not fulfilling all eligibility criteria, 31.3% protocol not being proposed and 22.7% patients’ refusal. Patients reasons for refusals were (could have more than one reason): 50% unknown, 26.5% fear of side effects, 20.6% too many visits, 14.7 % already enough anxious about disease, other. Conclusions: The largest barriers about recruitment were protocol ineligibility and protocol not being proposed by the medical team. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".