Reporting of Randomized Trials in Common Cancers in the Lay Media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited data exist about the role of the lay media in the dissemination of results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in common cancers. METHODS: Completed phase III RCTs evaluating new drugs in common cancers between January 2005 and October 2016 were identified from ClinicalTrials.gov. Lay media reporting was identified by searching LexisNexis Academic. Scientific reporting was defined as presentation at an academic conference or publication in full. Associations between reporting in the lay media before scientific reporting and study design and sponsorship were evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 180 RCTs identified, 52% were reported in the lay media and in 27%, lay media reporting occurred before scientific reporting with an increasing trend over time (p = 0.009). Reporting in the lay media before scientific reporting was associated with positive results (OR: 2.10, p = 0.04), targeted therapy compared to chemotherapy (OR: 4.75, p = 0.006), immunotherapy compared to chemotherapy (OR: 7.60, p = 0.02), and prostate cancer compared to breast cancer (OR: 3.25, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Over a quarter of all RCTs in common cancers are reported in the lay media before they are reported scientifically with an increasing proportion over time. Positive trials, studies in prostate cancer, and trials of immunotherapy are associated with early reporting in the lay media.
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 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 | 0.214 | 0.772 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".