Changes in primary outcome and sample size measures after initiation of accrual among trials supporting approval of drugs for hematological malignancies by the US food and drug administration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes in primary outcome and sample size measures after onset of patient accrual affects the scientific basis of evidence-based medicine. The FDA website was searched for trials supporting new hemato-oncology drug approvals from January 2010 to December 2017. Matching ClinicalTrials.gov entries were compared to identify modifications. Associated publications were reviewed for reporting of these changes. Of 69 included trials, five (7%) had post accrual modifications in primary outcome and 30 (43%) had modifications in planned sample size. Sample size was increased in 24 trials (median 66 patients, IQR 35-95, median relative increase of 40% from initial sample size) and was decreased in 6 trials (median 38 patients, IQR 27-60, median relative decrease of 25%). None of the primary outcome modifications and only 53% of the sample size modifications were reported in the related publications. Further improvement is warranted in order to achieve complete transparency in reporting landmark studies.
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 | 0.390 | 0.617 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".