MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3099851976 · doi:10.1530/eje-20-0800

ENSAT registry-based randomized clinical trials for adrenocortical carcinoma

2020· review· en· W3099851976 on OpenAlexaff
Joakim Crona, Éric Baudin, Massimo Terzolo, Alexandra Chrisoulidou, Anna Angelousi, Cristina L. Ronchi, Cristina Lamas, Els J.�M. Nieveen van Dijkum, Filippo Ceccato, Françoise Borson‐Chazot, Giuseppe Reimondo, Guido A M Tiberi, Hester Ettaieb, Andreas Kiriakopoulos, Letizia Canu, Darko Kaštelan, Esthr Osher, Eugenia Yiannakopoulou, Giorgio Arnaldi, Guillaume Assié, Isabel Paiva, Isabelle Bourdeau, John Newell‐Price, Karolina M. Nowak, Mario Romero, Maria Cristina De Martino, Maria João Bugalho, Mark Sherlock, Marie‐Christine Vantyghem, Michael Conall Dennedy, Paula Loli, Patrice Rodien, Richard A. Feelders, Ronald R. de Krijger, Sam Van Slycke, Simon Aylwin, Valentina Morelli, Laurent Vroonen, Zulfiya Shafigullina, Irina Bancos, Małgorzata Trofimiuk–Müldner, Marcus Quinkler, Michaela Luconi, Matthias Kroiß, Mitsuhide Naruse, Péter Igaz, Radu Mihai, Silvia Della Casa, Alfredo Berruti, Martin Faßnacht, Felix Beuschlein

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Endocrinology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdrenal and Paraganglionic Tumors
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialRandomized controlled trialMedicineAdrenocortical carcinomaDiseaseDisease registryRandomizationIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is an orphan disease lacking effective systemic treatment options. The low incidence of the disease and high cost of clinical trials are major obstacles in the search for improved treatment strategies. As a novel approach, registry-based clinical trials have been introduced in clinical research, so allowing for significant cost reduction, but without compromising scientific benefit. Herein, we describe how the European Network for the Study of Adrenal Tumours (ENSAT) could transform its current registry into one fit for a clinical trial infrastructure. The rationale to perform randomized registry-based trials in ACC is outlined including an analysis of relevant limitations and challenges. We summarize a survey on this concept among ENSAT members who expressed a strong interest in the concept and rated its scientific potential as high. Legal aspects, including ethical approval of registry-based randomization were identified as potential obstacles. Finally, we describe three potential randomized registry-based clinical trials in an adjuvant setting and for advanced disease with a high potential to be executed within the framework of an advanced ENSAT registry. Thus we, therefore, provide the basis for future registry-based trials for ACC patients. This could ultimately provide proof-of-principle of how to perform more effective randomized trials for an orphan disease.

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.007
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.312
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of EndocrinologySame topicAdrenal and Paraganglionic TumorsFrench-language works237,207