Systematic Review of Early Phase Pediatric Clinical Pharmacology Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Children have generally been excluded from early-stage clinical trials owing to safety concerns based in social expectations and not data. However, the repositioning of adult therapeutics for pediatric use and the increase in the development of therapies for pediatric only conditions require the participation of children in phase 1-2 trials. Therefore, the aim of this article is to systematically review the history and current state of early phase pediatric clinical pharmacology trials in order to understand safety concerns, trends, and challenges in pediatric trials. METHODS: This review analyzed the nature of early phase pediatric clinical trials conducted for nononcology conditions through a systematic search that was performed for pediatric non-oncologic phase 1 or phase 1-2 drug and vaccine studies in MEDLINE. RESULTS: The data show that the number of early phase pediatric clinical trials is still small relative to adults but has been on the rise in the past decade with relatively few serious adverse effects observed. CONCLUSIONS: The widespread concerns about children's safety when they participate in early phase clinical trials seem disproportionate, based on our findings. The data confirm that these studies can be conducted safely, and that their results can contribute significantly to pediatric pharmacotherapy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".