MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 3622: End of Trial Period for Randomized Controlled Cardiology Trials: Is patient safety monitored and protected?

2007· article· en· W4253606662 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mohammad I. Zia, Ronald J. Heslegrave, Gary E. Newton

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialRandomized controlled trialDeclaration of HelsinkiInformed consentProtocol (science)Helsinki declarationInstitutional review boardPeriod (music)Coronary artery diseaseData monitoring committeeResearch ethicsFamily medicineAlternative medicineIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineInternal medicineSurgeryPathologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The post trial period is the period after the end of study drug administration. The Declaration of Helsinki (DOH) states that “at the conclusion of the study, every patient entered into the study should be assured of access to the best proven prophylactic, diagnostic and therapeutic methods identified by the study.” It further adds that “post trial access arrangements or other care must be described in the study protocol so the ethical review committee may consider such arrangements during its review.” Therefore our objectives were: to determine whether research trial protocols systematically consider post trial period issues including planned follow-up and patient surveillance in the post trial period; and to assess if consent forms addressed end of trial issues. Methods: We searched the research ethics board (REB) databases at 2 academic institutions in Toronto from 1995 to 2006 to identify approved randomized clinical trials of chronic medical therapies for cardiac conditions. Results: Fourty-two studies were identified including 18 heart failure and 15 coronary artery disease trials. Thirty-eight of these trials were industry funded. Almost all trials (n=37) ended study drug abruptly at the last clinic visit, while only 4 studies offered a clinical visit post trial termination, and an additional 3 reported a telephone contact after trial completion. Only 5 trials submitted consent forms to the REB with a discussion of the post trial period. After REB review, no additional consent forms addressed the post trial period. When comparing the time period before and after the updated version of the DOH in 2000, there was a trend towards a decline in addressing post trial care (p=0.08). Conclusion: The majority of cardiac trials end study drug abruptly with unknown and potentially negative consequences, and most patients have no systematic post trial follow up from trial investigators. Study patients are also not made aware of the post trial period, as the majority of study consent forms do not discuss post trial care. Therefore, an important aspect of clinical trial design, the post trial period, could be improved by systematic follow-up described in the protocol, and full discussion of this aspect of trial participation in the consent form.

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)0.569
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.750
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5690.750
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.018
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0150.011
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.296 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207