MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4377088205 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2936937/v1

Quantifying the carbon footprint of clinical trials: guidance development and pilot study

2023· preprint· en· W4377088205 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Griffiths, Lisa Fox, Fiona Adshead, Rustam Al‐Shahi Salman, Craig S. Anderson, Emma Bedson, Professor Judith Bliss, Ana Boshoff, Xiaoying Chen, Denise Cranley, Peter Doran, Carrol Gamble, Professor Kerenza Hood, Naomi McGregor, Carolyn McNamara, Elis Midha, Keith M. Moore, A. Perkins, Sarah Pett, Matthew R. Sydes

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer Research
FundersDepartment of Health and Social CareMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsClinical trialCarbon footprintGreenhouse gasMedicineEnvironmental scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The urgency of the climate crisis requires attention from biomedical research, not least clinical trials which can involve significant greenhouse gas emissions. The Low Carbon Clinical Trials (LCCT) Working Group set out a strategy to reduce the emissions of clinical trials, starting with the development of a method to measure their carbon footprint (CO2e). Methods: As a first step, we developed a process map defining clinical trial core activities. Corresponding emission factors were sourced to convert activity data into greenhouse gas emissions. The subsequent method was piloted by application on two CRUK-funded trials (the international randomised sarcoma trial CASPS [ISRCTN63733470] and the UK cohort-based breast cancer trial PRIMETIME [ISRCTN41579286]). A guidance document defining the scope, method and assumptions was written to allow application to any clinical trial. Results: Trial specific activities over and above routine care were grouped into 10 modules covering trial set up, conduct and closure. We identified emission factors for all trial activities within both trials and used them to estimate their total carbon footprint. The carbon footprint of CASPS, an international phase 2 clinical trial of an investigational medicinal product with 47 participants, was 72 tonnes CO2e, largely attributable to clinical trials unit emissions and staff travel. PRIMETIME, a UK-based phase 3 non-investigational medicinal product trial with 1962 patients, produced 89 tonnes CO2e, largely attributable to trial-specific in-person participant assessments. Conclusion: We have developed a method and guidance that trialists can use to determine the carbon footprint of clinical trials. The guidance can be used to identify carbon hotspots where alternative approaches to trial design and conduct could reduce a trial footprint, and where methodology research is required to investigate the potential impact of interventions taken to reduce carbon emissions. We will continue to refine the guidance to increase the potential application and improve usability.

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)0.138
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.309
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1380.309
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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 head0.862
GPT teacher head0.630
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicClimate Change and Health Impacts→French-language works237,207→