MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predicting the failure of randomized clinical trials in radiation oncology: What can we learn?

2017· article· en· W2891041569 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy K. Nguyen, Eric K. Nguyen, Andrew Warner, Alexander V. Louie, David A. Palma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsCancer Care OntarioJuravinski Cancer CentreLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialInterim analysisRadiation therapyOdds ratioInternal medicineClinical trialSample size determinationOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e18241 Background: Although randomizedcontrolled trials (RCTs) are essential to evidence-based medicine, a significant proportion of cancer RCTs fail to complete. As RCT failure is not well understood in the field of radiation oncology, we sought to review radiotherapy RCTs to identify predictors of RCT failure. Methods: We undertook a review of the trial registry ClinicalTrials.gov to assess factors influencing the completion of RCTs involving radiotherapy. Eligible trials were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov between 09/27/2007 to 12/31/2010, included radiation (brachytherapy or external beam radiotherapy) in at least one study arm, and were closed due to either successful completion or failure to complete. Data was abstracted by two independent investigators, with discrepancies settled through consensus. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine factors predictive of RCT failure. Results: The initial search yielded 460studies. After reviewing protocol details, 138 studies met inclusion criteria, of which 41 (30%) failed to complete. Most common reasons for RCT incompletion were: lack of accrual (59%), inadequate funding (15%), drug unavailability (7%) and interim data monitoring report recommendations (7%). The highest proportion of RCT failure was observed in the most recent era (p = 0.009), with rates increasing from 11% (1987-2006) to 39% (2009-2012). On univariable analysis, independent predictors of failure included RCTs with a surgical comparator (odds ratio [OR] of failure 6.45; p = 0.010), government sponsorship (OR 3.68; p = 0.024), inclusion of a safety endpoint (OR 3.03; p = 0.014) and study start year (OR 1.18; p = 0.030). On multivariate analysis, surgical RCTs were strongly predictive of failure (OR 7.90; p = 0.015), while behavioral RCTs were less likely to fail (OR 0.14; p = 0.047). Conclusions: Rates of RCT failure in radiation oncology are high. Trials with a surgical comparator are highly prone to failure, whereas behavioral trials are more likely to succeed. These factors can help to inform the design of future RCTs, and develop strategies to mitigate the risk of failure in future radiation RCTs that include a surgical comparator.

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)0.653
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.896
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6530.896
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.013
Bibliometrics0.0170.022
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0170.039
Open science0.0090.006
Research integrity0.0150.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.257
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.227 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207