MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286221730 · doi:10.1080/07357907.2022.2104305

Suspension of Oncology Randomized Clinical Trials during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation of COVID-Related Suspensions

2022· article· en· W4286221730 on OpenAlexaff
Rashid K. Sayyid, Anthony Hiffa, Phillip Woodruff, Michael Oberle, Joshua H. Lambert, Martha K. Terris, Christopher J.D. Wallis, Zachary Klaassen

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Investigation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicineOdds ratioClinical trial2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Randomized controlled trialCross-sectional studyPandemicInternal medicineOddsCross overVirologyLogistic regressionPathologyMedical physicsDiseaseOutbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov-registered oncology randomized controlled trials between September 2019 and December 2021 to identify predictors of trial suspensions. The dataset included 1,183 oncology trials, of which 384 (32.5%) were suspended. COVID-19 accounted for 47 (12.2%) suspensions. Trials that were single center- or US-based had higher odds of COVID-19 (ORs: 3.85 and 2.48, 95% CIs: 1.60-11.50 and 1.28-4.93, respectively) or any-reason suspensions (ORs: 2.33 and 2.04, 95% CIs: 1.46-3.45 and 1.40-2.76, respectively). Phase two (OR 1.27), three (OR 6.45) and four trials (OR 11.5) had increased odds of COVID-19 suspensions, compared to phase one trials.

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)0.301
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.513
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.861

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3010.513
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.010
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.573
GPT teacher head0.599
Teacher spread0.026 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer InvestigationSame topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsFrench-language works237,207