Trialstreamer: a living, automatically updated database of clinical trial reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard method for evaluating whether a treatment works in healthcare, but can be difficult to find and make use of. We describe the development and evaluation of a system to automatically find and categorize all new RCT reports. Materials and Methods Trialstreamer, continuously monitors PubMed and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), looking for new RCTs in humans using a validated classifier. We combine machine learning and rule-based methods to extract information from the RCT abstracts, including free-text descriptions of trial populations, interventions and outcomes (the 'PICO') and map these snippets to normalised MeSH vocabulary terms. We additionally identify sample sizes, predict the risk of bias, and extract text conveying key findings. We store all extracted data in a database which we make freely available for download, and via a search portal, which allows users to enter structured clinical queries. Results are ranked automatically to prioritize larger and higher-quality studies. Results As of May 2020, we have indexed 669,895 publications of RCTs, of which 18,485 were published in the first four months of 2020 (144/day). We additionally include 303,319 trial registrations from ICTRP. The median trial sample size in the RCTs was 66. Conclusions We present an automated system for finding and categorising RCTs. This yields a novel resource: A database of structured information automatically extracted for all published RCTs in humans. We make daily updates of this database available on our website (trialstreamer.robotreviewer.net).
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 | 0.042 | 0.244 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.038 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.038 |
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".