Pooled solifenacin overactive bladder trial data: Creation, validation and analysis of an integrated database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-level data are available for 11 randomized, controlled, Phase III/Phase IV solifenacin clinical trials. METHODS: Meta-analyses were conducted to interrogate the data, to broaden knowledge about solifenacin and overactive bladder (OAB) in general. Before integrating data, datasets from individual studies were mapped to a single format using methodology developed by the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC). Initially, the data structure was harmonized, to ensure identical categorization, using the CDISC Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM). To allow for patient level meta-analysis, data were integrated and mapped to analysis datasets. Mapping included adding derived and categorical variables and followed standards described as the Analysis Data Model (ADaM). Mapping to both SDTM and ADaM was performed twice by two independent programming teams, results compared, and inconsistencies corrected in the final output. ADaM analysis sets included assignments of patients to the Safety Analysis Set and the Full Analysis Set. RESULTS: There were three analysis groupings: Analysis group 1 (placebo-controlled, monotherapy, fixed-dose studies, n = 3011); Analysis group 2 (placebo-controlled, monotherapy, pooled, fixed- and flexible-dose, n = 5379); Analysis group 3 (all solifenacin monotherapy-treated patients, n = 6539). Treatment groups were: solifenacin 5 mg fixed dose, solifenacin 5/10 mg flexible dose, solifenacin 10 mg fixed dose and overall solifenacin. Patient were similar enough for data pooling to be acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Creating ADaM datasets provided significant information about individual studies and the derivation decisions made in each study; validated ADaM datasets now exist for medical history, efficacy and AEs. Results from these meta-analyses were similar over time.
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 | 0.117 | 0.236 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".