MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361293897 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068173

SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for early phase dose-finding clinical trials: the DEFINE (DosE-FIndiNg Extensions) study protocol

2023· article· en· W4361293897 on OpenAlexaff
Aude Espinasse, Olga Solovyeva, Munyaradzi Dimairo, Christopher J. Weir, Thomas Jaki, Adrian Mander, Andrew Kightley, Shing Yip Lee, Alun Bedding, Sally Hopewell, Khadija Rantell, Rong Liu, An‐Wen Chan, Johann S. de Bono, Christina Yap

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoInstitute of Cancer Research
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCancer Research UKNational Institutes of HealthUK Research and Innovation
KeywordsConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsMedicineProtocol (science)Clinical trialDelphi methodTransparency (behavior)Psychological interventionAlternative medicineResearch ethicsChecklistCitationMultidisciplinary approachFamily medicineMedical educationMedical physicsPathologyNursingLibrary sciencePsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Early phase dose-finding (EPDF) studies are critical for the development of new treatments, directly influencing whether compounds or interventions can be investigated in further trials to confirm their safety and efficacy. There exists guidance for clinical trial protocols and reporting of completed trials in the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 and CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Randomised Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statements. However, neither the original statements nor their extensions adequately cover the specific features of EPDF trials. The DEFINE (DosE-FIndiNg Extensions) study aims to enhance transparency, completeness, reproducibility and interpretation of EPDF trial protocols (SPIRIT-DEFINE) and their reports once completed (CONSORT-DEFINE), across all disease areas, building on the original SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010 statements. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A methodological review of published EPDF trials will be conducted to identify features and deficiencies in reporting and inform the initial generation of the candidate items. The early draft checklists will be enriched through a review of published and grey literature, real-world examples analysis, citation and reference searches and consultation with international experts, including regulators and journal editors. Development of CONSORT-DEFINE commenced in March 2021, followed by SPIRIT-DEFINE from January 2022. A modified Delphi process, involving worldwide, multidisciplinary and cross-sector key stakeholders, will be run to refine the checklists. An international consensus meeting in autumn 2022 will finalise the list of items to be included in both guidance extensions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project was approved by ICR's Committee for Clinical Research. The Health Research Authority confirmed Research Ethics Approval is not required. The dissemination strategy aims to maximise guideline awareness and uptake, including but not limited to dissemination in stakeholder meetings, conferences, peer-reviewed publications and on the EQUATOR Network and DEFINE study websites. REGISTRATION DETAILS: SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE are registered with the EQUATOR Network.

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)0.373
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.516
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.627
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3730.516
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.014
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0120.012
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0140.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0970.046

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 head0.956
GPT teacher head0.783
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreProtocol

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

Citations33
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207