The Beginnings of the Canadian Cooperative Clinical Cancer Trials Program and the American Influences, 1962–76
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical cancer research in Canada entered a new phase in 1971. In that year, the National Cancer Institute of Canada agreed to initiate and support a multidisciplinary cooperative clinical trials program. The first collaborative randomized controlled trial (RCT) for the treatment of advanced Hodgkin's disease was launched in medical centres across the country in December 1971. Simultaneously, in the United States, the National Cancer Act came into effect. To what extent were these Canadian and American developments coincidental? I argue that the cooperative clinical trials program in Canada was timed to coincide with the US declaration of war on cancer, but it was not its corollary. Against the background of this American anti-cancer campaign, the cooperative clinical trials program emerged as a link between the strong radiotherapy tradition in Canada and the new trial infrastructure of chemotherapeutic regimes in the United States. The evolution of the Hodgkin's disease trial serves as a good example to demonstrate how growing collaboration among Canadian and American physician-investigators brought about a large-scale national study. The latter became a prototype of further cooperative oncological RCTs in Canada during the 1970s.
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 | 0.086 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".