MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A compendium of unpublished phase III clinical trials in oncology: Characteristics and impact on clinical practice.

2010· article· en· W4248319264 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Victor Tam, I. Tannock, J. Rauw, Monika K. Krzyzanowska

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialCancerInternal medicineClinical OncologyMEDLINECompendiumBreast cancerOncologyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6029 Background: Phase III clinical trials provide the highest level of evidence to inform treatment decisions. A large number of phase III clinical trials are presented at ASCO annual meetings each year but 26% remain unpublished within 5 years of presentation. The results of these unpublished trials, if more generally known, may have a substantial impact on clinical practice. Methods: We identified abstracts of phase III clinical trials with sample size ≥ 200 that evaluated systemic treatment for cancer by hand searching the conference proceedings of ASCO annual meetings between 1989 and 2003. PubMed, Medline and Embase were searched for corresponding publications. A compendium of unpublished phase III clinical trials was assembled. The clinical significance of nonpublication was determined by experts in each oncology site group at Princess Margaret Hospital and Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada. Results: A total of 713 phase III trials were identified and our initial search suggested that 80 remained without a subsequent publication by 2009. After contacting the authors of the abstracts an additional 8 studies were found to be published and 3 were in press, leaving 69 abstracts without a subsequent publication. Unpublished trials included those for patients with breast cancer (n = 24), gastrointestinal cancer (n = 14), lung cancer (n = 9), hematologic malignancies (n = 9), gynecologic cancer (n = 6), genitourinary cancer (n = 4), central nervous system tumors (n = 2) and head and neck cancer (n = 1). 51% of these abstracts were presented orally and 29% as posters. 68% of the unpublished abstracts reported non-significant results. In the opinion of the experts, a number of unpublished trials would have had at least some effect on clinical practice if their results had been published promptly, including 10 of the 14 gastrointestinal cancer trials and 3 of the 9 lung cancer trials. Conclusions: A considerable proportion of large phase III trials remain unpublished at least 6 years following presentation at ASCO annual meetings. Nonpublication breaks the contract made by investigators with patients, funding agencies and ethics boards, and can adversely influence clinical practice. Author Disclosure Employment or Leadership Position Consultant or Advisory Role Stock Ownership Honoraria Research Funding Expert Testimony Other Remuneration AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Roche

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)0.095
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.311
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0950.311
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.005
Bibliometrics0.0420.035
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.018

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 head0.910
GPT teacher head0.766
Teacher spread0.144 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews→French-language works237,207→