MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207060186 · doi:10.1002/cam4.4356

Intercontinental collaboration in clinical trials for children and adolescents with cancer—A systematic review by ACCELERATE

2021· review· en· W3207060186 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Teresa de Rojas, Andrew Pearson, Nicole Scobie, Leona Knox, Darshan Wariabharaj, Pamela Kearns, Gilles Vassal, Gregory H. Reaman

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Medicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthInstitut Gustave-RoussyHospital for Sick ChildrenChildren's Hospital of PhiladelphiaCancer Research UKNationwide Children's HospitalUniversità degli Studi di MilanoSolving Kids' CancerUniversità degli Studi di Milano-BicoccaUniversity of MinnesotaNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUniversity of Southern CaliforniaAndrew McDonough B+ FoundationAmgen
KeywordsClinical trialMedicineCancerChildhood cancerFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Since pediatric cancer drug development is a global enterprise, we sought to provide an overview of the landscape of intercontinental clinical trials in pediatric oncology opened over the last decade. METHODS: ClinicalTrials.gov was systematically searched to identify all clinical therapeutic trials which opened between 2010 and 2020 and recruited pediatric patients (<18 years) with cancer. RESULTS: Over the last 10 years, 295 (8.7%) of 3383 therapeutic pediatric cancer trials were international and 182 (5.4%) were intercontinental. Most intercontinental trials were phase-1 or 2, with 25% late-phase, 65% were sponsored by industry, and North America was involved in 92%. Industry-sponsored proportionally more phase-1 trials than academia (41% vs. 25%); conversely, academia sponsored more phase-2 and late-phase trials (39% and 31% vs. 36% and 21%, respectively) (p = 0.020). North America-Europe collaboration was predominantly industry sponsored as opposed to North America-Oceania and Europe-Oceania collaboration, more frequently academic (p < 0.0001). Most late-phase trials (18/20, 90%) focusing on pediatric malignancies were conducted by academic sponsors and 10 of these were conducted by Children's Oncology Group (COG)/National Cancer Institute in the United States and Oceania. There was no significant increase over time of intercontinental trials and a trend for a reduction in academic trials. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the relative rarity of childhood malignancies, especially within molecular subtypes, only 5.4% of pediatric cancer trials were intercontinental. The number of intercontinental trials remains small, with no significant increase over the last decade. The ACCELERATE International Collaboration Working Group aims to identify existing hurdles and propose solutions to improve intercontinental collaboration in clinical research for the benefit of children and adolescents with cancer.

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)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.194
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.194
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.010
Bibliometrics0.0150.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.590
Teacher spread0.278 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer MedicineSame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207