Do clinical trial acronyms affect patients’ interest in clinical trials? A randomized survey.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6639 Background: The use of acronyms in naming clinical trials has increased in recent years with minimal empirical examination of the effect that they have on research participants. The naming of trials is often a symbolic act; however, they may have a provocative origin that stimulates associations and influences perceptions of the research. No empirical evidence exists to confirm the supposition that certain trial acronyms may be coercive. The purpose of this study was to determine if a clinical trial title has an influence on a subject’s interest in a fictitious clinical trial. Methods: Two fictitious clinical trial scenarios (prevention and metastatic) for colon cancer were designed with the same three acronym titles (“CURE” a coercive, “RESCUE” a potentially coercive, and “COMET” a neutral acronym). An anonymous paper survey was randomly distributed to patients and caregivers at a comprehensive cancer center over a four-week period. Six different surveys were distributed and self-administered. Participants rated their interest in the clinical trial on a 5-point Likert scale and demographic information was collected. To determine the influence of acronym type on the Likert scale, univariate and multivariate ordinal logistic regression analysis was performed. Results: A response rate of 77.19% (1056/1368) was achieved. The specific acronym type (coercive and potentially coercive versus neutral) had no significant influence on the respondent’s interest in the clinical trial in either the preventive (p=0.787, OR=0.95) or the metastatic (p=0.284, OR=1.21) scenario. Only current (p=0.025, OR=1.56) or prior (p=0.038, OR=1.43) participation in a clinical trial positively influenced respondent’s interest in the fictitious clinical trials irrespective of the acronym title. Conclusions: Acronyms are commonly used in naming clinical trials and may facilitate clinician recall and familiarity. Although trial names may be perceived as potentially coercive, the results from this study suggest that coercive or potentially coercive acronym titles do not appear to influence patients’ or caregivers’ interest in the clinical trial.
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 | 0.057 | 0.149 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".