MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Enrollment of Neonates in More Than One Clinical Trial

2017· review· en· W2760923115 on OpenAlexafffund
Jonathan M. Davis, Gerri Baer, Ronald J. Portman, Robert M. Nelson, Linda Storari, Jacob V. Aranda, Ralph Bax, Anne Zajicek, Ágnes Klein, M. Turner, Simin Baygani, Merran Thomson, Karel Allegaert

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Therapeutics · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
FundersHealth CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyClinical trialPopulationIntensive care medicinePediatricsLegislatureFamily medicineEnvironmental healthInternal medicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because the highest rates of morbidity and mortality in neonates are seen in those born at <32 weeks' gestation, this group has the most urgent need for novel therapies to improve survival and outcome. Legislative efforts in the United States and Europe have attempted to address this issue by requiring the study of drugs, biological and nutritional products, devices, and other therapies in this population through a combination of high-quality regulatory and clinical trials, quality improvement initiatives, and observational studies. Because there are relatively small numbers of very preterm neonates born each year in any 1 country or continent, and because a significant number of clinical trials are recruiting at any 1 time, a neonate may meet enrollment criteria for >1 clinical trial. Neonatal units that have the infrastructure and resources to engage in research frequently face the question of whether it is permissible to enroll a neonate in >1 trial. This article examines the pertinent scientific, ethical, regulatory, and industry issues that should be taken into account when considering enrolling neonates in multiple clinical studies.

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)0.125
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.123
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1250.123
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.858
GPT teacher head0.690
Teacher spread0.168 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TherapeuticsSame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207