MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract P4-15-05: Participation of emerging regions in practice-changing breast cancer trials over the last three decades

2020· article· en· W3013807346 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrés Machado, Clara Rodríguez, Andrea Migliaro, Rodrigo Fresco

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerClinical trialLatin AmericansMedicinePopulationClinical PracticeDemographyIncidence (geometry)CancerFamily medicineGeographyPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthPathologyInternal medicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Conduction of clinical trials (CT) became increasingly globalized and has expanded beyond the established regions of North America and Western Europe. Although emerging regions are attractive due to easier access to a treatment-naïve population, faster recruitment and lower costs, some challenges are involved. Knowledge about the conduction of CT in emerging regions is relevant to better understand the implications of CT globalization. Objective: Assess the contribution of selected emerging regions to practice-changing breast cancer (BC) trials, contrasted to an established one. Methodology: We conducted a descriptive analysis of the contribution of 3 emerging regions to practice-changing BC trials: Latin America and the Caribbean (LATAM); East Asia (E. Asia) and Eastern Europe, Northern/Central Asia (Non-Western Europe); and an established one: US-Canada (US-Can). Practice-changing CT were defined as those that supported FDA approval of a new drug or indication. We identified all FDA-approved drugs for BC treatment from Jan-1992 to Dec-2018. For each drug we identified the applicable practice-changing CT through the latest package insert and analyzed the corresponding publications. The main variables evaluated were: participating countries, sites/country and authors/country. Participating sites data was obtained from ClinicalTrials.gov if it was not available in the publication. To better correlate each region´s contribution, we adjusted the number of CT to the average number of medical doctors (MD) and the average BC incidence in each region (obtained from the World Health Organization and GLOBOCAN, respectively). Results: 34 CT that led to the approval of 17 drugs were included. LATAM participated in 24 (70%), E. Asia and Non-Western Europe in 19 (54%), and US-Can in 32 (94%). 42% of LATAM countries participated in at least one trial, 63% in E. Asia and 30% in Non-Western Europe. Additional data is shown in Table 1. The number of CT in emerging regions was negligible until ~2001, when a progressive increase is observed (Table 2). In the last 2 years (2016-18) the number of CT in these regions more than doubled the one in the 2011-15 quinquennium. Number of practice-changing CT conducted in US-Can over the last decade is similar to the one in each of the emerging regions. Despite, contribution in terms of authorship is much lower in these regions (LATAM: 0.7 authors/CT, E. Asia: 2 authors/CT, Non-Western Europe: 0.6 authors/CT, US-Can 6.6 authors/CT). E. Asia has shown a steady increase in authorship contribution since 2011 (Table 2). Conclusion: Although the majority of CT are still being run in established regions, we showed that the number of practice-changing BC CT in emerging ones is currently equivalent to US-Can, what also led to more authorship opportunities. Number of sites per trial is higher in US-Can, what may reflect sponsor´s higher interest in this region and poorer enrollment rates compared to emerging ones. The ongoing globalization of clinical research is an opportunity for all stakeholders and efforts should be made to enhance it. Table 1 - Region´s data of interestTrialsLATAME. AsiaNon-Western EuropeUSA- CanNumber of CT (Total = 34)24191932Number of CT per 100.000 MD1.70.632.026.6Number of CT per 10.000 new BC cases/year1.20.41.71.2Percentage of region’s countries participating in at least one CT426330100Mean number of countries per CT3.22.91.51.7Mean number of sites per CT13.521.18.057.6 Table 2 - Number of practice-changing CT and authors per-5 year period1992-19951996-20002001-20052006-20102011-20152016-2018Total number of CT185749LATAM024747E. Asia001549Non-Western Europe002539US-Can165749Total number of authors239395342101LATAM022633E. Asia00051023Non-Western Europe000433US-Can23737382672 Citation Format: Andres Machado, Clara Rodriguez, Andrea Migliaro, Rodrigo Fresco. Participation of emerging regions in practice-changing breast cancer trials over the last three decades [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-15-05.

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)0.155
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.232
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1550.232
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.449
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.102 · 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
DomainMethods
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening→French-language works237,207→