MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945328036 · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100380

Trends in clinical trial investigator workforce and turnover: An analysis of the U.S. FDA 1572 BMIS database

2019· article· en· W2945328036 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher B. Fordyce, Matthew T. Roe, Christine Pierre, Terri Hinkley, Gerrit Hamre, Pamela Tenaerts, Jonathan McCall, James Topping

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Clinical Trials Communications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersJanssen PharmaceuticalsAstraZenecaU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbSanofiMerckDaiichi-SankyoAmgen
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalClinical trialWorkforceFood and drug administrationClinical researchDemographyFamily medicineGerontologyDatabaseInternal medicineMedical emergencyPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: High turnover rates among clinical trial investigators contribute to inefficiency, instability, and increased costs for the clinical research enterprise; however, factors contributing to investigator turnover have not been well characterized. METHODS: Using information from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Bioresearch Monitoring Information System (BMIS), we examined trends in the overall clinical investigator workforce and within specific "phenotypes" as well as differences by investigator location (U.S.-based vs. non-U.S.-based). We identified unique investigators within the database, stratifying them into one of three "phenotypes": those with one Form FDA1572 submission across the study interval ("one-and-done"); those with two or more submissions but with substantial intervals between trials ("stop-and-go"); and those with two or more submissions and continuous involvement in multiple trials ("stayers"). RESULTS: Of the 172,453 unique investigators who submitted a Form FDA 1572 during the study interval (1999-2015), 85,455 were classified as "one-and-done" investigators; 21,768 as "stop-and-go" investigators; and 65,231 as "stayer" investigators. The total number of investigators declined across the study interval. Among all subgroups, only "one-and-done" investigators showed growth across the study period, largely driven by increases in non-U.S.-based investigators. "Stop-and-go" investigators showed declines for both U.S.-based and non-U.S.-based investigators, as did "stayers," who showed the largest absolute and proportional declines of all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: From 1999 to 2015, investigators submitting a Form FDA 1572 to the BMIS database declined by approximately one-third and the proportion of investigators involved in only one trial increased, signaling potential adverse trends in the clinical investigator workforce. Strategies for sustaining investigator engagement warrant further exploration.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.888
GPT teacher head0.686
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designObservational
DomainIncentives
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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Clinical Trials CommunicationsSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207