ACTR-27. EVOLUTION OF THE NEUROSURGEON’S ROLE IN CLINICAL TRIALS FOR GBM: A SYSTEMATIC OVERVIEW OF THE CLINICALTRIALS.GOV DATABASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND The therapeutic challenge of glioblastoma (GBM) has catalyzed the active pursuit of a high volume of clinical trials to evaluate novel interventions for this deadly disease. Our enhanced understanding of the biology of GBMs has translated into an evolution of the role of the neurosurgeon as well. In this study, we have evaluated the current landscape of surgical clinical trials in GBM to characterize this evolution, describe current trends, and identify potential gaps in methodological features. METHODS The ClinicalTrials.gov database was searched for surgical/procedural trials in individuals with GBM on May 14th, 2019 without date limitations. Demographics, specific intervention (e.g. technical, device use, or local drug delivery), phase, sample size, and main outcome measures were abstracted. RESULTS 270 of 2140 trials (12.6%) were identified as procedural. The majority were based in the USA (189/270, 70%), single-center (188/270, 70%), and not randomized by design (215/270, 80%). Primary and recurrent GBMs were evenly addressed. Industry-funding supported 106/270 (39%) of studies. The leading test intervention was local delivery of therapeutics (44.8%), followed by use of novel devices (33%). Surgical technique/procedures comprised 20%. Early Phase designs predominated (177/270, 65.5%) but 67 (24.8%) did not report Phase. The greatest surge in new registrations over the last decade was seen in Phase I trials. The top primary outcome was safety/tolerability/ feasibility (107/270, 39%), followed by survival (62/270, 22%); 35 (12.6%) did not report a primary outcome. Approximately 15% of studies were terminated, withdrawn or suspended. Only 6 records were associated with reported results. CONCLUSIONS In GBMs, procedural interventions comprise a notable proportion of trials. Local delivery of therapeutics and novel device applications, predominantly through Phase I designs, represent the evolved role of the neurosurgeon in neuro-oncology. Improved documentation of design, outcomes, and reporting of results are needed to better inform the field and increase efficiency.
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 | 0.130 | 0.268 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".