MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245761955 · doi:10.21203/rs.2.9437/v2

Systematic review of basket trials, umbrella trials, and platform trials: A landscape analysis of master protocols

2019· preprint· en· W4245761955 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

VenueResearch Square · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialMedicineInterquartile rangeRandomizationMEDLINEProtocol (science)Randomized controlled trialMedical physicsAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Master protocols, classified as basket trials, umbrella trials, and platform trials, are novel designs that investigate multiple hypotheses through concurrent sub-studies (e.g. multiple treatments or populations, or that allow adding/removing arms during the trial), offering enhanced efficiency and a more ethical approach to trial evaluation. Despite the many advantages of these designs, they are infrequently used. Methods: We conducted a landscape analysis of published master protocols using a systematic literature search to determine what trials have been conducted, with an overall goal of improving literacy in this emerging concept. On July 8th, 2019 English-language studies identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases and hand-searches of published reviews and registries. Results: We identified 83 master protocols (49 basket, 18 umbrella, 16 platform trials). The number of master protocols has increased rapidly over the last five years. Most have been conducted in the US (n=44/83) and investigated experimental drugs (n=82/83), in the field of oncology (n=76/83). The majority of basket trials were exploratory (i.e. phase I/II; n=47/49) and not randomized (n=44/49), with almost half (n=28/48) only investigating a single intervention. The median sample size of basket trials was 205 participants (Interquartile range, Q3-Q1 [IQR]: 500-90=410), with a median study duration of 22.3 (IQR: 74.1-42.9=31.1) months. Similar to basket trials, most umbrella trials were exploratory (n=16/18), but use of randomization was more common (n=8/18). The median sample size of umbrella trials was 346 participants (IQR: 565-252=313), with a median study duration of 60.9 (IQR: 81.3-46.9=34.4) months. The median number of interventions investigated in umbrella trials was 5 (IQR: 6-4=2). In platform trials, randomization (n=15/16) and phase III investigation (n=7/15; one did not report information on phase), with four of them using seamless II/III design, were more common. The median sample size was 892 (IQR: 1835-255=1580), with median study duration of 58.9 (IQR: 101.3-36.9=64.4) months. Conclusions: We anticipate that the number of master protocols will continue to increase at a rapid pace over the upcoming decades. More efforts to improve awareness and training are needed to apply these innovative trial design methods to fields outside of oncology.

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)0.529
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.921
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5290.921
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0350.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.886
GPT teacher head0.702
Teacher spread0.184 · 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