MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989969554 · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100502

Continued investigator engagement: Reasons principal investigators conduct multiple FDA-regulated drug trials

2019· article· en· W2989969554 on OpenAlexaff
Carrie Dombeck, Terri Hinkley, Christopher B. Fordyce, Katelyn Blanchard, Matthew T. Roe, Amy Corneli

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Clinical Trials Communications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersJohnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and DevelopmentU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationAmgen
KeywordsClinical trialPrincipal (computer security)MentorshipThematic analysisDrug trialMedicineMedical educationAlternative medicinePublic involvementQualitative researchPsychologyFamily medicinePublic relationsPolitical sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Numerous reasons have been identified for why U.S.-based principal investigators choose to not continue participating in FDA-regulated trials. However, unexplored are reasons why a substantial number of principal investigators, facing the same challenges, remain engaged in clinical research. This study aimed to both describe barriers and identify factors that contribute to active investigators' success in conducting multiple FDA-regulated trials. METHODS: We conducted qualitative in-depth interviews (IDIs) with "active" multi-trial investigators. Interviews focused on investigators' experiences with FDA-regulated drug trials, challenges faced, and factors contributing to success. Investigators also reflected on previously identified barriers and shared advice for new investigators. Narratives were analyzed using applied thematic analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 23 experienced investigators, representing a variety of backgrounds. Most reported that demonstrated ability to conduct a trial led to being approached again by sponsors. Investigators cited infrastructure, staff support, advance planning, and personal qualities as key factors in successfully conducting multiple trials. Nearly all cited difficulties related to trial finances. Three-quarters pointed to challenges with patient recruitment; others described challenges related to data and safety reporting and to the time that trial implementation takes away from other activities. Aspiring investigators were advised to engage in research-specific training and seek out mentorship opportunities. CONCLUSION: Investigators in our sample faced many of the same challenges identified in previous research, yet they had evolved strategies to overcome them. The amount and type of support to which investigators have access may represent a crucial difference between "active" investigators and principal investigators who leave FDA-regulated trials.

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)0.168
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.297
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1680.297
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.010
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0050.013
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.914
GPT teacher head0.658
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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