MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017796721 · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(20)30086-8

A real-time dashboard of clinical trials for COVID-19

2020· letter· en· W3017796721 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Digital Health · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLopinavirHydroxychloroquineMedicineFavipiravirRitonavirClinical trialCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Randomized controlled trialLopinavir/ritonavirInternal medicineVirologyViral loadDiseaseHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Antiretroviral therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emergency, clinical trial research assessing the efficacy and safety of clinical candidate interventions to treat COVID-19 are emerging at an unprecedented rate. As of April 21, 2020, well over 500 clinical trials have been registered at the various international and national clinical trial registry sites. Findings from randomised clinical trials that have been published as of April 21, 2020, have investigated the efficacy of lopinavir–ritonavir compared with standard of care,1Cao B Wang Y Wen D et al.A trial of lopinavir-ritonavir in adults hospitalized with severe Covid-19.N Engl J Med. 2020; (published online March 18.)DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa2001282Crossref Scopus (3870) Google Scholar hydroxychloroquine compared with best supportive care,2Chen J Liu L Liu P et al.A pilot study of hydroxychloroquine in treatment of patients with common coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19).J Zhejiang Univ (Med Sci). 2020; (published onlne March 6.)DOI:10.3785/j.issn.1008-9292.2020.03.03Google Scholar favipiravir compared with arbidol,3Chen C Huang J Yin P et al.Favipiravir versus arbidol for COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial.medRxiv. 2020; (published onine April 8.) (preprint)DOI: 10.1101/2020.03.17.20037432Google Scholar and lopinavir–ritonavir compared with arbidol.4Yao X Ye F Zhang M et al.In vitro antiviral activity and projection of optimized dosing design of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).Clin Infect Dis. 2020; (published online March 9.)DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciaa237Crossref Scopus (1958) Google Scholar Other non-randomised trials have investigated hydroxychloroquine versus hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin.5Gautret P Lagier JC Parola P et al.Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial.Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020; (published online March 20.)DOI:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105949Crossref PubMed Scopus (3763) Google Scholar Over 300 trials are enrolling participants and cover further investigations of the above drugs and promising therapies such as remdesivir, IL-6 inhibitors (tocilizumab and sarilumab), convalescent plasma therapy, stem-cell transfusion, vaccine candidates, several other well known direct acting antiv irals, and traditional Chinese medicines. Most of these trials will offer comparative efficacy data versus standard of care according to local COVID-19 treatment guidelines, but a handful of randomised controlled trials will also provide head-to-head evidence between high profile interventions. The figure shows the network of completed, ongoing, and planned COVID-19 interventional clinical trials of these interventions or intervention groups that are being explored in at least two trials. Given the accelerated rate at which trial information and findings are emerging, an urgent need exists to track clinical trials, avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts, and understand what trials are being done and where. In response, we have developed a COVID-19 clinical trials registry to collate all trials. Data are pulled from the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, including those from the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, Clinical Research Information Service - Republic of Korea, EU Clinical Trials Register, ISRCTN, Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials, Japan Primary Registries Network, and German Clinical Trials Register. Both automated and manual searches are done to ensure minimisation of duplicated entries and for appropriateness to the research questions. Identified studies are then manually reviewed by two separate reviewers before being entered into the registry. Concurrently, we have developed artificial intelligence (AI)-based methods for data searches to identify potential clinical studies not captured in trial registries. These methods provide estimates of the likelihood of importance of a study being included in our database, such that the study can then be reviewed manually for inclusion. Use of AI-based methods saves 50–80% of the time required to manually review all entries without loss of accuracy. Finally, we will use content aggregator services, such as LitCovid, to ensure our data acquisition strategy is complete. With this three-step process, the probability of missing important publications is greatly diminished and so the resulting data are representative of global COVID-19 research efforts. Trials for COVID-19 are then mapped according to geographical, trial, patient, and intervention characteristics, when these data are available. These data are stored securely in a backend database and outputs are visualised on a front-end feature. As trial findings are communicated, these data must be centralised and meta-analysed in real-time. Syntheses of these trials are urgently needed to assist clinicians, researchers, and policy makers to make evidence-informed decisions to minimise the morbidity and mortality due to COVID-19. We declare no competing interests.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.452
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.452
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.522
GPT teacher head0.608
Teacher spread0.086 · 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