Approach to High Volume Enrollment in Clinical Research: Experiences from an All of Us Research Program Site
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical trials and cohort studies are required to meet target recruitment of study participants within stipulated timelines, especially when the priority is to include populations traditionally unrepresented in biomedical research. By the third quarter of 2019, the University of Arizona-Banner Health Provider Organization (UA-Banner HPO) has enrolled > 30,000 core participants into the All of Us Research Program (AoURP), the research cohort of the Precision Medicine Initiative. The majority of enrolled participants meet the criteria for individuals under-represented in biomedical research. The enrollment goals were calculated based on a target of 20,000 as set by the National Institutes of Health and our health provider organization achieved enrollment numbers between 17% and 86% above the targeted daily enrollment. We evaluated enrollment methods and challenges to enrollments encountered by the UA-Banner Health Provider Organization into the AoURP. Challenges to enrollment centered around the need for high-touch engagement methods, time investment necessary for stakeholder inclusion, and the use of purely digital enrollment methods especially in populations under-represented in biomedical research. These challenges occurred at the level of the individual, provider, institutions, and community, and cumulatively impacted participant enrollment. Successful strategies for engagement and enrollment leveraged provider partners as advocates for the program. For high-volume enrollment in clinical research, it is important to engage leaders in the healthcare setting, patient providers, and tailor engagement and enrollment to potential participant needs. We emphasize the need for precision engagement and enrollment methods tailored to individual needs.
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 | 0.048 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".